"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin," and have neglected the weightier matters of the law — justice, mercy, and faithfulness; these they ought to have done "without neglecting the others" (a paraphrase of Matthew 23:23).

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

Some use this passage to argue that Jesus affirmed Christian tithing. Since Jesus added "without neglecting the others," it is suggested that He taught tithing.

Here is the central problem with this interpretation: it is a pre-cross instruction. What is more, it affirmed not just the tithe but the whole Law of Moses. Even though Jesus highlighted the tithe, it was representative of laws like it. Otherwise, I believe He would have said "without neglecting the tithe" rather than "without neglecting the others." Those who use this passage to argue that Jesus affirmed the tithe for Christians would also have to admit that Jesus required Christians to keep the whole Law of Moses.

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

Pastors and teachers take all kinds of liberty in interpretation. For example, although the tithe referred specifically to produce and livestock, pastors readily say it is equivalent to Christians giving their church a tenth of their money today. On what basis? People had both food and money then, yet the tithe was of produce and flocks.

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

Here is the inconsistency. Some who on the one hand argue for a truly distinct ethnic Israel will on the other hand casually equate Jewish practices with Christian equivalents and then mandate them, as if every instruction concerning the temple or the Jewish nation must automatically have a Christian counterpart. I believe this is unwarranted and poor interpretation. It does not honor the Old Testament but dishonors it by going beyond what is written, creating new traditions that obscure the true understanding and application of God's Word. This is what Jesus condemned in His day (cf. Mark 7:6–13).

While we are on this issue, let me address another proof text used to defend Christian tithing. It is argued that the New Covenant did not nullify the tithe because tithing existed before the Law. Did it really? The chief example given is Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek. Consider this example from Genesis 14, for which we have the benefit of inspired commentary in Hebrews 7.

First and foremost, Abraham did not give a tenth of his income. He gave a tenth of the spoils of battle (cf. Hebrews 7:4). What is more, it was spoil from which he kept nothing for himself (cf. Genesis 14:22–24). Abraham tithed nothing from his own wealth. And for all we know, he did this only once. If we follow Abraham's example, should Christians tithe only once in their lifetimes?

Even more to the point, this passage describes what Abraham did; it does not prescribe what believers must do for all time. I believe this is proof-texting at its worst. Apart from the word "tithe," which simply means "tenth," there is very little relationship to the later tithing under the Law or to the practice of tithing in churches today. Those who apply Abraham's example to Christian tithing, I believe, must extract the text from its context, change its meaning, recast it as a command from God, and apply it to a wholly different group of people.

Then there is the example of Jacob's promise to give a tenth to God if God would bless him. This too is used to defend Christian tithing. In many ways it is a weaker example than Abraham's, but I will leave that discussion for another day.

Pressuring people into giving through unbiblical preaching on tithing is never a good thing. It always makes me 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, that God will curse Christians who fail to tithe and bless (sooner or later?) those who do, how is this so different from prosperity preaching? Please see my contextual exposition of Malachi 3 on this site. When one of the most conservative and Bible-based churches I know preaches this way, my heart sinks at what it reveals about the condition of churches in America today.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Jesus' words in Matthew 23:23 are a sharp rebuke of misplaced priorities. The Pharisees were so scrupulous that they tithed garden herbs — mint, dill, and cumin — while neglecting "justice and mercy and faithfulness." Jesus followed with a memorable image: "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" (23:24). His "weightier matters" echo the prophets, especially Micah 6:8 ("do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly") and Hosea 6:6 ("I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice"). The point is that obedience in small matters can become a substitute for the heart of God's law.

Christians hold different views on tithing today. Some, like the comment, hold that the tithe belonged to the Mosaic covenant and is not binding on Christians, who are called instead to generous, voluntary, proportionate giving (2 Corinthians 8–9). Others see the tithe as a principle that predates the Law (Genesis 14; 28) and remains a helpful baseline or starting point for Christian giving, while agreeing that it is not a legalistic requirement for salvation or blessing. Across these views, most agree with the comment that giving should never be coerced by guilt or promises of material reward, and that the New Testament's standard — giving cheerfully, generously, and "as he has decided in his heart" (2 Corinthians 9:7) — calls for a heart transformed by grace.

Jesus tells the Pharisees the parable of the wedding banquet. The kingdom of heaven, He says, is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent servants to those already invited, but they refused to come. He sent more servants to say that the dinner was ready and everything prepared — but they paid no attention, going off to their fields and their businesses, while the rest seized the servants, mistreated them, and killed them (a paraphrase of Matthew 22:1–6).

I loved the metaphor of the wedding banquet describing God's kingdom. Jesus describes heaven as a celebration and a feast — yet despite the occasion, no one wants to come, and some go so far as to kill the messengers the king sent. While this seems absurd, Jesus is making the point that this is exactly what Israel had been doing to God's messengers, the prophets. And of course Jesus would suffer the same fate.

It's hard to imagine what heaven will be like, but I love the analogy of a wedding banquet — a great celebration, plenty of food, and all your friends there. The other good thing about this analogy is that it should make sharing God's message easier. Everyone likes a celebration.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The observation at the end is a fair one and worth extending, because the parable's imagery does cut against a common misconception — that the invitation being extended is fundamentally a demand rather than an offer. A banquet host is not recruiting labor. But the parable is also unsentimental about why the invitation gets declined, and the reasons it gives are instructive: not hostility in the first instance, but preoccupation. One went to his field, another to his business. Only afterward does the refusal escalate into violence. That progression suggests the parable is less interested in dramatic rejection than in the ordinary, unremarkable way a genuinely good offer gets crowded out by things that seemed more pressing at the time.

Jesus presents another parable about the kingdom of heaven: certain people are invited to a wedding banquet for the king's son, but some refuse, others make excuses, others mistreat the messengers. The king destroys them and gathers people from everywhere to fill the hall instead — but one is found without proper wedding clothes and is cast into outer darkness (a paraphrase of Matthew 22:1–13). This connects directly to the parable just before it, about the wicked tenants who refused to give the landowner his harvest, mistreated his servants, and killed his son — they were destroyed, and the vineyard given to others (see Matthew 21:33–46). Jesus explains this directly: the kingdom would be taken from those who rejected the prophets and God's Son, and given to a people who would actually produce its fruit (a reference to Matthew 21:43). The wedding banquet parable seems to run the same idea: Israel was first invited, but because of unbelief, the invitation extended to the Gentiles as well — the same argument Paul develops in Romans 10–11 (see Romans 11:11–12, 30). Among those newly invited, both "bad and good" are included — meaning personal moral condition doesn't restrict admission; what matters is whether a person receives the proper attire. Since wedding garments were provided by the host in that culture, anyone invited would have been given what they needed. In Revelation's version of this same banquet, the fine linen given to the bride "stands for the righteous acts of God's people" (a paraphrase of Revelation 19:8) — given, not purchased or earned. That suggests the wedding garment in this parable represents righteousness given rather than achieved, consistent with what Paul teaches about imputed righteousness through Christ (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 8:1–4). So "many are called, but few are chosen" may mean: while the invitation went broadly to both Jews and Gentiles, only those who both respond and receive Christ's righteousness by faith actually enter the banquet. Those found without it face judgment.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The Jew-Gentile framework this comment applies consistently across several parables represents one historically significant way of reading these texts, tracing directly back to Paul's own argument in Romans 9–11. It's worth noting that not every interpreter reads every detail through that specific lens — some see the "wedding garment" and "many called, few chosen" language addressing genuine versus superficial response to the gospel across all people, without mapping cleanly onto the two ethnic-covenant groups specifically. Both readings converge on the parable's clearest claim: that admission to God's kingdom depends on a righteousness given rather than earned, which is precisely the point this comment's own closing paragraph lands on regardless of which specific historical mapping turns out to be correct.