The Tithe and the Oath

The sound of sword and shield has faded now. What a trip it's been, this chapter. It all started fourteen years ago, when the cities of the lower Jordan Valley plain somehow became vassals of the Elamites, called upon to pay up annual tribute from their superb metal resources. At last they'd stopped payment, maybe thinking they'd be safe, only to bring the power of the world down on their heads. An Elamite king, a Sumerian king, and two kings from up north had swung down with their military might, defeating a litany of six peoples while circling down and around the cities of the plain. Finally the five kings of the cities had marched out to face the four kings of the nations, and the result had been abysmal (Genesis 14:1-10)

All of this would have been barebones history, if not for one consequence: in the aftermath of the rout, the kings of the eastern nations and their armies had plundered the cities, taking away not only a great deal of provisions and property, but also captives from the cities – one of whom was Lot, beloved if wayward nephew of the Hebrew chieftain Abram (Genesis 14:11-12). Hearing of the younger man's plight as a prisoner of the departing eastern armies, Abram called on his allies, poured out his trained militia, and rode in to the rescue. Calling on all his tactical instincts, at Canaan's north edge he fell upon the captors, despite their greater power, and scattered them. It was a miraculous success (Genesis 14:13-15).

As the winner in this kind of situation, there were maybe six things Abram and his army carried away from the enemy camp as they came back to pick it clean and then descend once more into Canaan. First and most dear, Abram retrieved Lot with his whole household, the people and property alike. Second, by their side, Abram rescued “the women and the people” of Sodom and likely the other cities of the plain. Third, Abram reclaimed “all the possessions” of those cities, including the wealth of Sodom. Fourth, in all likelihood the easterners had taken plunder in their six previous victories; or, as one ancient writer put it, “the kings... had with them spoils from other places that they had captured beforehand.”¹ Fifth, he probably picked up “the property of the king of Elam and his allies,”² meaning the equipment and provisions abandoned in the easterners' hasty retreat. And last of all, it's not out of the question that, in chasing out the invaders, some of those fleeing soldiers weren't fast enough, or got injured in the battle, and ended up as prisoners of war taken by Abram's army (Genesis 14:16).

That's quite a lot of people and things that could be with Abram as he slowly makes his way back south in the direction of his home camp at Hebron. But the march is waylaid in the Valley of Shaveh, at least twenty-two miles north of where they're going (Genesis 14:17). And in these days, you can count on a victorious army to do two things on their way home from the battlefield. First, there was going to be some kind of celebration of the victory, which meant rituals and sacrifices and feasting and singing.³ And second, there would be a division of the booty, which included all the prisoners captured and all the plunder taken; the winning king had the right to distribute these to his “auxiliaries, kinsmen, and friends” as he saw fit.⁴ So now that Abram's march home is on hold, last week, we focused on the first of those things, the victory celebration. But today, we'll keep an eye out for the customary “redistribution of booty among combatants, noncombatants, and sanctuaries.”⁵

The reason why Abram and his army stop here is that he's met by two other people who each join him; these three will dominate the stage in these last verses, and everybody else fades into the background – though it's a bit weird we don't hear at all from Lot, given that everything that's just happened was for his sake.⁶ Instead, we meet with two kings in the valley, and every little detail we read is crafted to play up the differences between the two kings, inviting us to meditate on the contrast in vision and behavior they represent.

One of them, the first one we meet, is “the king of Sodom” (Genesis 14:17). The other, who quickly interrupts, is “the king of Salem” (Genesis 14:18). Those city names aren't spelled as much alike in Hebrew as in English – they only have the last letter in common – but they're the same length and have some similarities in sound. Yet we know Salem, Jerusalem, is called to be the anti-Sodom. The king of Salem has a name, and it's given for us: Melchizedek, which (as we explored last week) means something like 'my king is righteous' or even 'king of righteousness.' Nice name. The king of Sodom has a name, though it hasn't been used since before the battle. His name, or at least the name the Bible sticks him with, is Bera, which sounds like how you'd say he's 'in evil.' So one king's name points to righteousness; the other points to being mired in evil. That's not exactly subtle! Even before either man does anything, their places and names sketch a vast moral gulf between the characters.⁷

Now, how does Bera come on stage? What do we see as we watch him appear? “The king of Sodom went out to meet” Abram (Genesis 14:17). Like we said last time, it's an ambiguous phrase. It could mean he's going out to receive Abram and his army hospitably; but it could just as easily suggest that Bera went out to intercept Abram, which would be a more confrontational move.⁸ So how does Melchizedek come on stage? Well, we read that “Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine” (Genesis 14:18). 'Went out' and 'brought out' are two different forms of the same Hebrew verb, which only accentuates the differences here.⁹ The king of Salem is the one who brings the hospitality, bringing gifts of food, even holy food. So that's not how Bera makes his appearance. He emerges, comes out – from where? Straight from the tar pit? From the empty husk of Sodom? Neither sounds good, and he's not bringing anything. But we aren't sure what he's up to. When it comes to motives, Melchizedek is the less mysterious of the pair!

But then each of the kings makes a statement. And, you know, sometimes you can learn a lot from the first word out of somebody's mouth, right? Well, the first word out of Melchizedek's mouth is 'bless,' as in “Blessed be Abram” (Genesis 14:19), a prayer; while the first word out of Bera's mouth is 'give,' as in “Give to me!” (Genesis 14:21), a demand.¹⁰ Think about that: the first thing Bera says to Abram, who just risked life and limb to go save the people Bera's responsible for, is 'Gimme, gimme, gimme!' These kings embody totally opposite visions of life. “The king of Sodom brings no gifts and offers no blessing.”¹¹ Bera comes across without an ounce of gratitude – actually, with “an unnatural lack of gratitude”¹² – and he “struggles even to be civil” toward the heroic Abram.¹³ But Melchizedek is warm and friendly while he models generosity and awe. Bera is a man with a secular mind; there's no indication he joined the celebration or its worship. Melchizedek is a deeply religious figure, a priest whose royal calling is totally wrapped up in his pious service. Melchizedek's statement is fourteen words long in Hebrew, falling neatly into two seven-word halves, each of which begins with the word 'bless' and is totally taken up with who God is and what God's done. There isn't a thisworldly bone in his body. Bera, not so much. He says just six words in Hebrew – again, two phrases of three words each – and they're tied down to the dirt, unable to escape the earthly gravity of possessions.¹⁴

It's plain to us that Melchizedek is the better example to follow – go thou and do likewise. But it's also plain to us that there are far more Beras in the world today than Melchizedeks. And of course that includes among the kings of the earth, the ruling authorities. If you've watched the news this week, you've probably seen in front of your eyes that negotiations between political leaders don't always go smoothly! And we're about to see that that happens in the Bible, too. Because Bera and Abram are about to negotiate how to handle what Abram's won.

Bera's opening gambit, in these negotiations – really, the only thing he says – is this: “Give me the lives, and the goods take for yourself” (Genesis 14:21). What does Bera propose he takes? The people, the lives, the souls. First and foremost, he's talking about the captives from Sodom, the people whose king he's supposed to be. But if there are any Elamite prisoners of war – which, again, we don't know for sure either way – they'd also fall under this request. Bera suggests that they all be his cut. What about Abram's cut? That, Bera says, could be anything and everything else: animals and food and gold and silver and clothing and equipment, any of it, all of it; whatever in the pile can't talk back when you say hi, that can be Abram's to keep, uncontested.

When you put it that way, it certainly sounds like a generous offer. And some ancient readers took the story that way, imagining the king of Sodom addressing Abram very respectfully and bowing down to him,¹⁵ so that Bera “shows high regard for” Abram here.¹⁶ They supposed that Bera “desired only to recover those of his subjects whom [Abram] had rescued,”¹⁷ that Bera's motives are simply humanitarian, the words of a good and decent king (at least in this humbling moment). And when Bera relinquishes claim on anything and everything else to Abram, well, those readers take it as “a fine gesture of gratitude.”¹⁸ Even Martin Luther thought that Bera and his royal retinue here “express their gratitude with extraordinary respect” toward Abram.¹⁹

And that sounds convincing, and it sounds pleasant. But everything we've known about Bera to this point has made him a model of rudeness and ingratitude. That should make us skeptical. Bera may be acting the part of a generous lord... but that's just the problem. After a military victory, who has the right to dictate the terms under which the plunder will be divided? I'll give you a hint: it's not the guy who ran away in the previous battle and never showed up at all to this one. Bera had nothing to do with this success, not even in a noncombatant capacity like guarding supplies for Abram. Yet Bera isn't making a humble request; he's decreeing an outcome, as though he were the one with authority over the war booty. He's not being generous; he's using generosity as a cover for the fact that he's “grasping and selfish,” just like his city Sodom.²⁰ Bera's acting as if he were the war's winner. Even more, we know from treaties at the time that, if an alliance of kings captured both prisoners and plunder, usually it was the dominant king who claimed the right to all the people, and he'd let the lesser kings keep the animals and other property.²¹ So Bera is posing as if Abram were a lesser king under his sovereignty, as if Abram had been acting under his direction and lordship. It's a very disrespectful move: Bera “tries to exert his non-existent authority and tempt Abram with the plunder” that isn't really all Bera's to give.²² Subtly, by posturing as Abram's benefactor, Bera is “trying to bring Abram under his authority and sway.”²³

And that reminds me of a story you'll hear more about from Barry next week, as we start our journey through Lent. Maybe you remember this scene from the Gospels: “The devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, 'All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me'” (Matthew 4:8-9). What is that, if not Bera writ large? The devil shows Jesus all the goods – the glory of the kingdoms of the world. The devil will go even further than Bera, saying, “Take the goods for yourself, take the kingdoms for yourself; only take them from my open hand, that I might make you rich. Give me your thanks, and I'll give you absolutely everything else; just submit and be mine.”

So now we understand what's at stake here for Abram. Bera tempts Abram in the valley in the mountains as a type, a foreshadowing, of how Satan will tempt Christ on the mountain top. This temptation is a foretaste of that one: material wealth and apparent control, so long as Abram will just agree to these terms in full knowledge that they're Bera's terms – so long as Abram will admit himself beholden to Bera and let Bera make him rich, he'll be rich indeed. That's what the king of Sodom is really suggesting. Bera's apparent generosity is a devilish proposal; his is “the sweet, ingratiating voice of the serpent.”²⁴ Bera is doing his father's works (John 8:44).

But, of course, Abram doesn't have the foreknowledge to see things that way. He's dealing with Bera's words at their surface level, based on what he can see right now. And I believe there are six possible responses Abram can make to Bera. Option #1: Abram can simply comply. Abram can look at the situation, decide it advantages him, and take all the goods just as Bera's offered them. Abram can always reason that this prosperity and power are worth a bit of his pride, and maybe Abram can make a friend out of it. Abram could go that route. Or, Option #2: Abram can push back on the implication but dictate the same terms: “I'll give you the people, and I'll give you the goods, but it's because I say so, and I'm in charge here, not you. So there!” That's friendly, but it might save Abram a little face, though it comes across a little bit toddler. Then there's Option #3: Abram can retort by flipping things around; Abram can be a contrarian: “No, Bera, I'll take all the people, and you take the goods I tell you to take.” And there's always Option #4: Abram can shut the negotiations down. Who does this guy think he is, anyway? Bera hid in a pit of sticky tar while his people were dying and being kidnapped, Bera didn't even ask for Abram's help, so what right does Bera have to any of the spoils of Abram's victory? Abram could, in this fourth option, just cut Bera out altogether; Abram could keep the people and property alike, daring Bera to object. And if need be, Option #5 would go even further. Look what Abram's done; he just chased off the world powers that defanged the toughest fighters anywhere around Canaan. So why not let the momentum carry him further into his destiny? The cities of the plain are defenseless; their land is so sweet. Why not take over? In this fifth option, Abram could see a path to making himself a conquering king, sitting on Bera's throne.

So how will Abram decide? Well, he first remembers why he did what he did. It was a mission of mercy. His motivation, originally, was “not for a reward,” but “out of love for my nephew” and to help “people wrongfully abducted.”²⁵ Abram's exploits were “truly taking pity on the needs of his neighbors.”²⁶ To forget that now, to keep playing the part of the conqueror, would be to let victory go to his head and make him “proud and demanding,” an unacceptable deformation of his character, of his heart.²⁷ So he's got to let go of Option #5, the path of further conquest. And the same reasoning leads him to reject Option #4, that of keeping everything and everybody, since he wasn't looking for a reward. In fact, if Option #3 suggests making captives out of those Abram came to save, well, that won't be good either. Abram stepped in to be a savior, not another abductor, even for the people of Sodom; and salvation should be an occasion of joy. But if Abram chooses Options #2 or #3, he'll be separating the people of Sodom from their own belongings, becoming a cause of poverty to them.²⁸

Then the next consideration is that Sodom is just not nice, and neither is their king. If Abram were to keep the people, like in Option #3, he'd have to incorporate nearly the whole population of Sodom into his household; and wouldn't that just make the household of Abram itself just Sodom?²⁹ As much as he might wish he could break them away from Bera's influence, ultimately Bera is more a reflection of them than they are of him. Speaking of which, dealing with Bera would be “a potentially treacherous relationship, given the wicked character of the city.”³⁰ Bera just isn't the kind of man Abram wants to keep as a friend, or even somebody whose Christmas card mailing list Abram wants to be on.³¹ The psalmist hasn't said it yet, but Abram already can: “I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked” (Psalm 26:5). So Abram “is unwilling to be in a formal relationship with the king of Sodom;”³² he “wishes to have nothing more to do with Sodom.”³³

So that rules out Option #2 again. Abram doesn't want to be striking a deal with the king of Sodom. And just as much, Abram doesn't want it to look like he's got something to do with Sodom. He knows that, if he takes Bera up on this offer, Bera is going to say, “I have made Abram rich” (Genesis 14:23). Abram knows he has a great destiny in front of him – God has promised it (Genesis 12:2-3). But Abram knows that if he accepts these apparent gifts from Bera of Sodom, Bera's going to go around undercutting Abram by claiming credit for all of Abram's future successes. Abram doesn't want Bera believing that, and Abram definitely doesn't want other people thinking it.³⁴ Nor does Abram want, in his own heart, to later feel like he owes Bera and Sodom some sort of unpaid debt which might obligate him to their interests in spite of their moral corruption; and neither does Abram want to run the risk that the people of Sodom, or anyone else down the line, will resent Abram for having profited at their expense.³⁵ That then puts the kibosh on Option #1. Abram mustn't just comply with Bera's demands; he mustn't live his life on Sodom's terms or risk his reputation.

Besides, Abram remembers what he just learned from Melchizedek: “Blessed be God Most High..., Possessor of heaven and earth..., who delivered your enemies into your hand” (Genesis 14:19-20). It's God Most High who possesses all of heaven and all of earth and all that in them are, just as surely as Abram owns the sheep in his flock. It's God Most High who put all these gifts into Abram's hand, and put these enemies and their things into Abram's hand. Abram planned and fought, but it was God who gave the victory (1 Corinthians 3:6; 15:57). That makes it even more unacceptable that Abram should take any option that even appears to give Bera king of Sodom credit for what God Most High has done. Meeting with Melchizedek is exactly what Abram had needed to discern how to “respond appropriately to the king of Sodom” here and now.³⁶

But wait, what is the appropriate response? We've shot down all five options. Oh, wait – I said there were six options Abram had, didn't I? Option #6: Abram can subvert Bera's manipulation from the inside out. Abram can meet it, not with posturing and power, but with a radical grace that restores proper order to the world. Now, what on earth could that possibly mean? Well, it's nothing else than the secret of the Sermon on the Mount. What did Jesus tell the people of Galilee? That when Roman soldiers demand they carry their equipment for them, to go the extra mile (Matthew 5:41)? Why? Because a Roman soldier could by law compel a provincial to carry their equipment for one mile, but not for two. By insisting on going the extra mile, a Galilean wouldn't merely shame the Roman; he'd make the Roman soldier an apparent law-breaker, so maybe next time the Roman would think twice about making somebody carry his stuff at all. The same reason applies when Jesus says, “If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well” (Matthew 5:40). Under the Law of Moses, it was illegal for one Israelite to take another's cloak overnight, since they doubled as blankets (Exodus 22:26-27); so by forcing any litigious oppressors to take your only cloak, you'd be forcing them to openly break the law, inviting public consequences. And Jesus advises people to turn the other cheek – that is, “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39). Why? Because if a has slapped you on your right cheek, they had to do it with the back of their hand – which was a particular insult, implying you're a lesser person than them. So Jesus says to turn to them your other cheek, your left cheek. If they're to hit you again, they'll have to do it with the palm of their hand, like an equal; and if they refuse, then you've shown that you're in control, again with dignity.³⁷

And it's in that same unexpected spirit that Abram could act. Faced with Bera's manipulative proposal which implicitly positions Bera as Abram's overlord, Abram can confront him with excessive compliance. Abram can turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, offer up his cloak. How? By refusing to be bought. By not letting the insult go unanswered, yet answering without retaliating. By divesting himself of all worldly benefits from the battle. Abram can surrender the people and the possessions alike, not necessarily all to Bera, but certainly in a way that makes it clear Abram's acting in sovereign freedom and so that Bera and Sodom have no claim on him.

So that's just what Abram chooses to do. And the way he says it is brilliant. Making no mention of the people, Abram says, “I will not take anything that is yours” (Genesis 14:23). “He refused to take any of the spoils” for himself.³⁸ He “refuses any material gains” that might muddy perception of his motives.³⁹ But the way he says it makes his point even clearer: “Not from a thread to a strap of a sandal, and not will I take from all that is yours” (Genesis 14:23). It sounds a lot like an ancient treaty we've found from a few centuries after this time. That treaty tells a story about a Canaanite king whose city was plundered, but he was loyal to a Great King who came to his rescue by defeating the plunderers and obtaining what was lost. The Canaanite king, in gratitude, wanted to offer some of that plunder back to his overlord, but the overlord responded that he wouldn't take any of it: “Of whatever belonged to [the Canaanite city], and even the least blade of grass or the least stick..., the Great King will not even touch.”⁴⁰ That's what the Great King had written. So when Abram answers Bera by “refusing anything from the king of Sodom in return for his accomplishments,”⁴¹ Abram is acting out the part of the overlord, casting Bera as his social inferior. His shrewdness is splendid.

But Abram does decree two exceptions to the keep-nothing rule, both for the sake of fairness. See, Abram isn't alone. He had the backing of allies with whom he'd made a covenant, and that mutual-support treaty with the Amorites probably contained stipulations about fairly dividing up booty after a joint battle.⁴² Abram's creative response to Bera can't be allowed to compromise what he owes to his friends; Abram won't renege on his duties under a covenant. So Abram carves out this exception to his release of rights, saying he will be taking “the share of the men who went with me: let Aner and Eshcol and Mamre take their share” (Genesis 14:24). “Only they have the authority to give you their portions.”⁴³ Abram can't and won't make that choice on their behalf.

The other issue is that, in any military action in the ancient world, the soldiers who fought had some expectation of profit from any victory.⁴⁴ Abram's servants have put their lives on the line in this rescue mission, and since the big battle, they've been living off of provisions plundered from the easterners' camp, some of which might have originally been raided from Sodom. Of course, Bera couldn't object, since if an overlord sent his soldiers to the defense of a lesser king, that lesser king was responsible for their food and drink.⁴⁵ So Abram invokes that right. He says he'll accept just that token share for his soldiers, “what the young men have eaten” (Genesis 14:24) – really, nothing more than reimbursement for their expenses.⁴⁶ It wasn't much, but “as a lover of justice, he did not hesitate to distribute their shares to the soldiers who had fought with him.”⁴⁷

But aside from these two caveats, Abram makes clear that his policy isn't reactionary. Before Bera even spoke up, back while Abram was celebrating with Melchizedek,⁴⁸ Abram says, “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth,” that he wouldn't take anything originally from Sodom (Genesis 14:22). Abram lifted his hand like you would in court: to swear a sacred oath.⁴⁹ It's the first time oaths are mentioned in the whole Bible,⁵⁰ and Abram believes in advance that “if a man... or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word” (Numbers 30:2). Abram makes clear here that “it is Abram's loyalty to God that prevents him from accepting gifts from Sodom,”⁵¹ treating Sodom's property like leprosy.

Abram's acting out of a conviction – not only that Sodom's goods are polluting, but that Sodom's goods and the rest of the plunder is pointless. It's as if Abram's saying, “I have on my side the Supplier of countless goods.”⁵² If the LORD who called Abram is the same God Most High who created and owns the heavens and the earth and all that in them are, then Abram doesn't need to live in a world of scarcity. Abram can surrender this wealth without thinking he's missing out on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. God Most High will provide what he needs, and will do it in a way that can't be twisted or misinterpreted or exploited by Bera's bid to launder his reputation. And the LORD undoubtedly has better blessings in store for Abram, he trusts, than this mammon proffered by Sodom's king.⁵³ What Abram realizes is just that, with a God like the LORD, Abram doesn't need anything Bera could give him or anything Bera could do for him.⁵⁴ God is enough.

And so Abram is free to be “concerned solely about the welfare of his neighbor” – to act selflessly and with an eye toward what will actually help the people around him.⁵⁵ What's good for Bera and the Sodomites isn't just that they enjoy the prosperity of the world. It's that they find prosperity for their souls. So that's why Abram makes a point of declaring that he's acting for the sake of God – out of loyalty to the LORD who is the same God Most High they've heard about. Abram wants Bera and his people to “come to know the God over all.”⁵⁶ And so Abram “went to considerable trouble to encourage him to a sense of religion, both through the gifts he declined to accept and through the conversation he had with him.”⁵⁷ Abram openly gives God the credit for all that God has done. And to that end, Abram forgoes a fortune for the sake of a clearer witness.

Abram ultimately “does not gain political success at the expense of moral good.”⁵⁸ He does not take a course of action here that “would contradict his life's work.”⁵⁹ He refuses to be compromised by the goods of this world and the disordered attachments they're likely to generate here; unlike us so often, he won't let his loyalties be bought or sold even 1%.⁶⁰ He “resists the temptation” to submit to earthly economics.⁶¹ He's an inspiration to “despise this world's wealth,” like the riches of Sodom, “so as to be able to find the true wealth” which is in God and not in man.⁶² For “it isn't in the habit of the saints to rejoice over worldly riches.”⁶³

But instead, he does something else. Before he cedes things back to Bera or even hears Bera's bad idea, Abram follows a time-honored practice. It was normal, in the wake of a battle, for some of the prisoners and plunder to be dedicated to the winner's gods, often to set up some kind of memorial in the temple.⁶⁴ Melchizedek as a king was a noncombatant, but more importantly, he was the priest of the same God Most High who was the source of Abram's victory.⁶⁵ So “our forefather Abraham didn't hold back, but... thought to honor him.”⁶⁶ “Abram gave him a tenth of everything” (Genesis 14:20), “to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything” (Hebrews 7:2), “a tenth of the spoils” of the battle (Hebrews 7:4). It's “the first time a tithe is given in the Bible.”⁶⁷

Ancient Jews saw here that “the LORD ordained it as an ordinance forever that they should give it to the priests, to those who minister before him..., and there is no limit of days for this law.”⁶⁸ In the Law of Moses, “to the sons of Levi I have given every tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service that they serve” (Numbers 18:21), so that the entire tribe was “freed from secular work... but devoted their attention exclusively to the priesthood.”⁶⁹ Nehemiah upheld Israel's obligation to “bring to the Levites the tithes” (Nehemiah 10:37), while Malachi warned that, by shortchanging on their tithe, Judah was effectively “robbing God” (Malachi 3:8-9). These things were taken so seriously that the Pharisees tithed even on the spices they put on their food; and while Jesus says they should return to the Law's weightier themes, he adds that they shouldn't neglect the good they're already doing (Luke 11:42), since “the giving of tithes” belongs to God's “purely moral” law,⁷⁰ that they should “reap material things” who “sow spiritual things” (1 Corinthians 9:11).

Early Christians marveled and admitted that “hardly any Christian would find that easy to do,”⁷¹ lamenting that “we should be ashamed of ourselves.”⁷² They urged the disciples to “give tithes of all your profits to the church for the clergy and the poor,”⁷³ since this had been asked by “our God who has deigned to give us all.”⁷⁴ In paving the way, Abram became a model “of the need to... offer up the firstfruits of what has been provided us by God” in the victories he gives us in life, whether against invading kings or simply the inertia of the world.⁷⁵

But there's a bigger point here, on which we ought to end. “See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils” (Hebrews 7:4)! Remember everything we read about tithing in Israel? All Jewish tithes were paid to the Levites – by children of Abraham to children of Abraham, brother to brother (Hebrews 7:5).⁷⁶ The only difference that justified one paying another is that the Levites had been chosen by the word of God. In fact, “those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the Law to take tithes from the people” (Hebrews 7:5). And the Levites were all multiplied from Levi, so in a way, “Levi himself receives tithes” in the Levites (Hebrews 7:9). And yet here we see that Abram, great-grandfather of Levi, paid tithes to Melchizedek. “This man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who has the promises” (Hebrews 7:6). And so, the New Testament goes on, “one might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him” (Hebrews 7:9-10). Thus, “Abram gave him the tithes not only on behalf of himself, but also on behalf of all those who were going to be born from him,” including the priests.⁷⁷

So it stands to reason, the New Testament says, that if Israelites paid tithes to the Levites, but Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham, then Melchizedek must be greater still (Hebrews 7:7), since he “received tithes not by reason of any law but of himself.”⁷⁸ One early Christian concluded here that “Abraham would not have given him a tenth of everything unless he knew that Melchizedek was infinitely greater than himself.”⁷⁹ For the priesthood of Melchizedek outshines the entire priestly system the Old Testament Law is founded on, because “Christ long again received tithes in Melchizedek.”⁸⁰ So “the old priesthood has ceased to exist, and another, a new priesthood,” that of Jesus Christ, “has been brought in to take its place.”⁸¹ And in Christ, we have “prevailed over enemies visible and invisible;” in Christ, we're freed to set our hearts on heavenly rewards and not the wealth and friendship of the world; in Christ, we can give to God the greatest portion of us, until we're at last fully his.⁸² Amen.