Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others (Mattew 23:23).

This verse is not difficult to understand. Jesus taught that the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of practicing selective obedience to the Law. They faithfully tithed their produce, but they did not practice justice, mercy and faithfulness.

This passage is used by some to argue that Jesus affirmed Christian tithing. Since Jesus added the expression, "without neglecting the others," it is suggested that Jesus taught tithing. 

Here is the central problem with this interpretation. It is a pre-cross instruction. What is more, it did not simply affirm the tithe but the whole Law of Moses. In other words, even though Jesus highlighted the tithe, this was only representative of the laws like it. Otherwise, he would have said, "without neglecting the tithe" rather than "without neglecting the others". Those that would argue that Jesus affirmed the tithe for the Christian using this passage would also have to admit that Jesus required Christians to follow the whole Law of Moses.

But of course, Jesus did not affirm the tithe for the Christian. This was an instruction before Jesus went to the cross, by which He ratified the New Covenant, making the Old Covenant obsolete (cf. Hebrews 8:7,13). Christians were not in view because Jesus specifically addressed scribes and Pharisees about their faithfulness to keep the Law of Moses. Jesus was simply exposing their hypocrisy under the Old Covenant. 

Pastors and teachers take all kinds of liberty with respect to interpretation. In other words, even though the tithe has unique reference to food, pastors readily say that this is equivalent to Christians giving their church a tithe of their money today. On what basis? They had both food and money back then. Tithe was never of money.

Though the tithe was collected in storehouses, they argue that this is equivalent to the business office of the church? On what basis? Do we bring sacrifices? Do we celebrate the Sabbath? What gives anyone the right to arbitrarily pick and choose parts of the Old Covenant as having Christian equiavalents?

Here's the inconsistency. Those that would on the one hand argue for a truly distinct and ethnic Israel will on the other hand casually equate and then mandate Jewish items and practices with Christian equivalents, as if every instruction concerning the temple or the Jewish nation automatically must find its equivalent in Christian practice. This is unwarranted and bad hermeneutics. This is not "honoring" the Old Testament but dishonoring it by going beyond what is written, leading to the creation of new traditions that take away from a true understanding and application of the Word of God. This is what Jesus condemned in His day (cf. Mark 7:6-13).

While we are on this issue, let me bring up another proof text used by some to defend Christian tithing. It is argued that the New Covenant did not nullify the tithe because the tithe existed before the Law. Did it really? The chief example given is that of Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek. Let's consider this example from Genesis 14. We even have the benefit of a divine commentary on the event in Hebrews 7.

What we learn first and foremost is that Abraham did not pay a tithe (literally "tenth") from his income. He gave a tenth of the plunder (cf. Hebrews 7:4). What is more, this was a plunder, from which he took nothing for himself (cf. Genesis 14:22-24). Abraham tithed nothing from his own wealth. What is more, for all we know, he only did this once ever. if we follow Abraham's example, Christians should only need to tithe once in their lifetimes?

Even more pertinent, this is what was descriptive of what Abraham did and not what is prescriptive for believers to do for all time. This is proof-texting at its worst. Outside of the use of the word "tithe", which was simply a common Hebrew expression for "tenth", there is very little relationship to either the later Hebrew tithing under the Law or the practice of tithing by churches today. Those that would apply this incident with Abraham to Christian tithing would have to violently extract this text out of its context, then change its meaning, then recast it as a command from God, and then apply it to a wholly different group of people.

Then, there is the example of Jacob's promising to give a tenth to God if God would only bless him. This too is used to defend Christian tithing. In many ways, this latter example is worse than the example of Abraham. But I will leave that discussion for another day. 

Guilting people into giving by unbiblical preaching on tithing is never a good thing. It always causes me to shake my head and sigh when pastors do this. And when they go so far as to declare that Christians are robbing God by not giving the church at least a tenth of their income and then declaring that God would curse Christians, who fail to tithe, while blessing (sooner of later?) those that do, how is this so different from the preaching of prosperity theology. Please see my contextual exposition of the teaching in Malachi 3 (using the Scripture Search dropdown above). When one of the most conservative and Bible-based churches I know preach this way, my heart sinks because of what it reveals about the condition of Christian churches in America today. 

Jesus continues his teaching and tells Pharisees the parable of the wedding banquet.
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. "Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ "But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. (Matt 22:1-6)

I loved the metaphor of the wedding banquet describing Gods kingdom. Jesus is describing heaven as a wedding banquet or celebration and feast. Yet despite the wonderful occasion no one wants to come and in fact kill the messengers sent by the King. While this seems crazy, Jesus is making the point that this is exactly what Israel has been doing to Gods messengers (prophets). And of course Jesus will suffer the same fate.

While it's hard to imagine what heavens will be l like, I love the analogy of a wedding banquet - a great celebration, with lots of food and all your friends. The other great part of this analogy is that it should really make the sharing Gods message easier - everyone likes a great celebration

Friends, once again we are confronted with the expression "many are called, but few are chosen" (Matthew 22:14; 20:16 NKJV). In this context Jesus presents another parable of the kingdom of heaven. In this parable certain people are invited to the wedding supper of the king's son. But some refuse, others make excuses, and still others mistreat the messengers. Therefore, the king destroys them and sends his servants to gather people from everywhere to fill the wedding hall. But one is found without a garment. This one is then cast out of the banquet into outer darkness. What could this parable mean?

Again, no explanation is given here; however, if you are like me, I see a kind of pattern here in the parables of Jesus. The scenario in this parable is very much like the one in Matthew 21:33-46. In that parable wicked vinedressers, to whom a landowner leased his vineyard, refused to supply fruit to the landowner and instead mistreated the landowner's messengers and finally killed his son. Like those that refused to come to the banquet, the wicked vinedressers were then destroyed. And just as others were invited to the banquet, so here the land was leased to others. A key verse in this parable is Matthew 21:43, where Jesus explains,

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Where there is little else explained, this may explain a lot. It appears that Jesus is saying that the parable relates to the kingdom being taken away from the Jewish nation and given to the Gentiles. The Jewish leaders had rejected the prophets and were now rejecting God's own Son. This is the signficance of the citation of the Messianic Psalm, Psalm 118:22-23,

The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

Jesus was the stone that had become the chief cornerstone, which the builders, the Jewish religious leaders, had rejected. Even the Pharisees correctly perceived that this parable was about them (Matthew 21:45). Therefore, the kingdom promises moved from the Jewish nation to the Gentiles. This is the very argument that Paul makes in Romans 10 and 11. In those chapters Paul writes that because of the disobedience of the Jews, salvation has come to the Gentiles (Romans 11:11-12, 30).

Could this also be relevant to today's parable of the wedding supper? Once again the kingdom of heaven is in view. The wedding supper of the king's son finds it's antecedent in the wedding supper of the Lamb in Revelation 19:7-9. The Jewish nation was first invited, but because of their unbelief and rebellion, God turned to the Gentiles, among whom were both "bad and good" people. But these Gentiles did not automatically get into the banquet. They had to be properly attired. Wedding garments were traditionally provided by the host. Therefore, anyone invited would also be provided the proper wedding garments to wear. In the wedding banquet of the Lamb in Revelation, we are told that "fine linen, bright and clean, were given" to the bride, and that the "fine linen stands for the righteous acts of God's people" (Revelation 19:8). Since the fine linen was given and not "bought" or "earned", we can surmise that "the righteous acts" were also given freely.

Could it be that the proper wedding attire in the parable is the same as the fine linen in Revelation, and so also "stands for the righteous acts of God's people," which God gives to those whom He invites? It is interesting that among those invited to the wedding banquet both "bad and good" are included. That means that one's personal moral condition does not restrict participation in the banquet. This gives greater support to the idea that the wedding garments represent righteousness given to them rather than their own righteousness. And isn't this what God accomplished for us through Jesus Christ. As we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21,

God made him who had no sin to be sinfor us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

We also learn this in Romans 8:1-4,

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful humanity to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in human flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Now, we come full circle back to the expression, "For many are called, but few are chosen." In the present parable of the wedding banquet, Jesus seems to be teaching that since the Jewish nation rejected the invitation to come to Him, the Gentiles were given the opportunity, provided each of them received the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ. The many would then refer to all peoples, Jews and Gentiles. The few would refer to those invited and given proper wedding garments; that is, those among the people who are both called to salvation and given the rightesouness of Christ. And we are told that those without proper attire, without the righteousness of Christ, would be cast "into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 22:13). The place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" always refers to the place of judgment and destruction.

If you might indulge me just a bit longer, this discussion gives us clues to better understand yesterday's parable of the workers in the vineyard. We mentioned that the parable taught that God is sovereign, just, and gracious in His acts. But we did not attempt to identify the first workers and the latter workers. The proximity of this parable to the ones just described above, the recurring theme of Jews and Gentiles in Jesus' parables, as well as the common use of the expression ("many are called but few are chosen," at least in the NKJV) all lend support to the idea that Jesus has the same fundamental idea in view.

Thus, I would suggest that the first workers may represent the Jewish nation. The latter workers, the Gentiles. The first workers were jealous of the latter workers because the latter workers received the same as they. Likewise, both in Jesus' days and throughout the early church, as recorded in Acts, we are told that the Jews were jealous of the Gentiles. God had given the Gentiles the same opportunity to enter the Kingdom of Heaven as the Jews.

What is more, while God began with the Jews with respect to the Law (which might be seen represented in the contract to work a full day for a denarius), God began with the Gentiles with respect to grace. Paul describes in Romans 10-11 how the Jewish nation had been displaced by the Gentiles with respect to God's favor, and the Jews would not be restored until the full number of Gentiles are saved (Romans 11:25-26). Therefore, those who were first (the Jewish nation) would be last, and those who were last (the Gentiles) are now first. As Jesus taught in the parable of the wicked vinedressers, God had taken away the kingdom of God from the Jews in order to give it to the Gentiles, who would bring forth its fruits (Matthew 21:43).

If I might make one final comment, it is appropriate that the first workers relate to the Jewish nation because like the first workers, the Jewish nation related to God (i.e. the employer) only with respect to the Law (i.e. the contract). However, like the latter workers, the Gentiles related to God with respect to grace (i.e. they were willing to receive whatever seemed right to the employer). In historical retrsopect, God gave to the Jews what they deserved but God gave to the Gentiles what they did not. The Jews, who thought they could achieve righteousness through the Law, failed, and were justly judged by God. The Gentiles, who received the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, succeeded, and were graciously blessed. Paul describes this in detail in Romans 9:30-32,

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;  but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal.  Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Therefore, dear friends, let us continue to remember and acknowledge that the righteousness that is sufficient to take us to heaven and bring us into the wedding banquet of the Lamb is not our own but what has been given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us continue to humble ourselves and glorify Him, to whom belong all praise and honor and glory and power. Amen!