|
From this passage we learn:
- That a tenth of the produce of the land, whether of seed or fruit, was claimed by God, and was to be regarded as holy (or set apart) for Him.
- That if the offerer wished to retain this tenth of seed or fruit, he might do so by paying its value, and adding thereto one-fifth.
- That every tenth calf and lamb also (that is, increase of the herd or flock) was to be set apart for Jehovah.
That this form of animal tithe might not be redeemed, nor the animals exchanged: but if an owner, notwithstanding, presumed to change a tithe animal,
then both the tithe animal [The manner of tithing, as described by Maimonides, was this: "He (the owner) gathers all the lambs and all the calves into a field, and makes a little door to
it, so that two cannot go at once; and he places their dams without, and they bleat, so that the lambs hear their voice, and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said,
whatsoever passeth under the rod: for it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand; and when they go out of the fold, one after another, he begins and counts them with
the rod: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that goes out, whether male or female, whether perfect or blemished, he marks it with a red mark, and says,
'This is the tithe" (Hilchet Becorot, c. 6, sect 1; from Gills Exposition, on Leviticus 27:32)] and that for which it was exchanged, were to be forfeited, and set apart
for Jehovah.
From Numbers 18:21-24 we learn that the tithe just mentioned, though claimed by Jehovah Himself, was given by Him to the Levites. Thus:
"And unto the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, even
the service of the tent of meeting. And henceforth the children of Israel shall not come nigh the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin, and die. But the Levites shall do the service of the
tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. For the
tithe of the children of Israel, which they offer as a heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance."
Hence this first, or Lords tithe, is known also as the Levites tithe, concerning which it may be convenient here to notice:
- That from this tithing no produce of land, or increase of herd or flock, is expected.
- That the offerer has no voice in its disposal.
- That though it was called a heave offering, the offerer did not receive any of it back again.
That this tithe was not an amount that might be diminished, or an alms that the owner might render or not as he pleased, but a divine claim, the
withholding of which was regarded by God as dishonesty, Malachi 3:8.
It may further be noted concerning this first tithe that the Levites to whom it was given by God, were required by Him to render a tenth of what they
received as a heave offering to Jehovah, and to pay it to Aaron the priest, Numbers 18:26-28.
We now proceed to a second tithe, which reads thus, Deuteronomy 14:22-27:
"Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by year. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God,
in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock; that thou mayest
learn to fear the Lord thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it, because the place is too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall
choose to set His name there, when the Lord thy God shall bless thee: then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy
God shall choose: and thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee: and
thou shalt eat there before the lord thy God,and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household: and the Levite that is within thy gates."
Concerning the second tithe, we seem to learn:
- That it consisted of the yearly increase of the land.
- That it was to be eaten by the offerer, his household, and the Levite, with firstlings of herd and flock, but only at the appointed place of worship.
- The object of this was that Israel might always fear Jehovah.
- This tithe might be converted at home into money, to be expended at the capital for sacrifices and feasting.
- The tithe-payer was to eat and rejoice before God.
- The due payment of this second tithe involved a stay of at least a week each at the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles, as well as a shorter period
at the Feast of Weeks, Deuteronomy 16:3, 13, 16.
It will help us better to understand this second, or festival tithe, as it is sometimes called, if we consider the end it was to serve. All the males
in Israel (with their families, if they chose) were to assemble at the sanctuary three times a year for the worship of God, Deuteronomy 12:6-7.
"And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your
freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock: and there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your
households."
The primary end, therefore, of the festivals was to foster religious principles and to furnish a time and place for social observances and the
offering of sacrifices, all being done in recognition of God's bounty, and as acts of fealty and worship to Him. Now, in all nations, the main idea of a sacrifice has been that of a meal
offered to a deity (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., "Sacrifice," by W. Robertson Smith, vol. 21, 132). In some cases the meal was made over entirely to the god; but more commonly
the sacrifice was a feast, of which the god and the worshippers were supposed to partake together. In other words, the offering rendered, whether animal or vegetable, was sometimes wholly
burnt; at others, was consumed partly by fire and partly by the priest; or, once more, part was burnt, part was taken by the priest, and a part returned to the offerer.
So, if an Israelite sinned, his appointed way to forgiveness was by sacrifice; and if he had vows to redeem, or thanksgivings to make, all involved
the presentation of sacrifice. But this and other sacrifices were not to be offered in just any place the worshipper chose, Deuteronomy 12:17-18, but must be taken to the
ecclesiastical capital, such as was afterwards established at the resting-places of the Ark, as in Shiloh, and in Jerusalem.
Speaking generally, the Jewish sacrifices partook more or less of the nature of expiation (for sin committed), of dedication (when seeking a favour),
or of thanksgiving (for favour received); and according to the intention of the offerer was the kind of sacrifice presented.
In the case of the burnt offering proper, the priest took the skin, but all else was consumed by fire, Leviticus 7:6. In the case of the sin
offering, the trespass offering, and the meat (or meal) offering, that which was not burnt was for the officiating priest, or the priests generally, Leviticus 5:2-10, 7:6-10, whilst,
in the case of the peace offering, the breast and right shoulder only belonged to the priests, and the remainder might be consumed by the offerer. [I remember how these distinctions were
practically brought home to my mind in India at Jaipur, where, at the daily sacrifice, I saw a goat decapitated before a Hindu alter. The head was placed on the alter, curtains were drawn,
and the god was supposed to be left to partake of the meal in some mysterious way. Again, in Calcutta, as I approached the temple of Kali, I saw a man carrying the headless carcass of a
goat, which he had just offered in sacrifice, the head having been taken by the priest, and the offerer being at liberty to dispose of the carcass as he pleased.]
Thus the Israelite would have the opportunity of eating and rejoicing before God, and feasting with his household; and the second, or festival, tithe,
was intended to furnish the means for doing this.
Furthermore, if the first and second tithes be compared, it will be seen, by way of distinction, that whereas the offerer had no voice whatever in the
disposal of the first tithe, the disposal of the second tithe was largely in his own hands; and that whereas the offerer did not receive again any portion for himself of the first tithe, he
might receive in some cases the greater part of the second tithe for his own use, or purposes, as well as for the enjoyment of others.
We now come to a third tithe, Deuteronomy 14:28-29,
"At the end of every three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase in the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates; and
the Levite, because he hath no portion nor inheritance with thee, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be
satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest."
This seems to teach that:
- A tenth of every third year's increase was to be laid up at home.
- This tenth was to be shared by the local Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.
- The object of this tithe was, that Jehovah might bless the work of the tithe-payer's hands.
Some think this was not a third tithe, but a triennial substitute for the second tithe, so that in the third, and again the sixth, years (as well as
the seventh year, when the land was not to be cultivated), the Israelite would not take the second, or festival, tithe to the sanctuary, but would dispose of it among the poor at home.
Perhaps this view may have been in part suggested by the Septuagint, which varies the punctuation, and reads: "After three years thou shalt bring
forth all the tithe of thine increase. In that year thou shalt lay it up in thy cities," Deuteronomy 14:27. [In support of this opinion may be quoted the words of Maimonides: "On the
third and sixth years from the sabbatical year, after they have separated the first tithe, they separate from what remains another tithe, and give it to the poor, and it is called the
poor's tithe; and not on those two years is the second tithe, but the poor's tithe." -- Gill on Deuteronomy 14:28; Maimonides, Hilchot Mattanot Anayim, c. 6, sect. 4. See also
Speaker's Commentary on Deuteronomy 14:28-29, and McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, vol. 10. p. 433.]
Selden and Michaelis also argue in the same direction, saying that a third tithe should be an excessive demand upon the income of a man who had
already expended two-tenths of his increase (McClintock and Strongs Cyclopaedia, vol. 10, p. 434). Peake likewise says: "It may be urged that it is not probable that a double tribute
should be exacted from the crops." And again: "Nor is it probable that a tax of nearly one-fifth of the whole produce should be imposed on the farmers." (Article "Tithe," in Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible, I, p. 780.)
On the other hand, as opposed to these conjectures, it may be observed:
That the Hebrew text nowhere says explicitly that the third tithe should be substituted for the second.
The injunction is several times repeated that every male should go up to the festivals yearly but neither the third, sixth, seventh, or any other year
is excepted. [Some (and Professor Driver, International Critical Commentary, Deuteronomy, p. 168, among them) have supposed that, as the land was not to be sown in the seventh year,
no tithe would be paid (McClintock and Strong, vol. 10, p. 435). But if so, how were the Levites during that year to live, unless a double or triple tithe was to be paid in the sixth year?
And this the law had already provided for. "If ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? Behold we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase. Then will I command My blessing upon
you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years," etc., Leviticus 25:20-22.]
Besides, not going up to the festivals on the third, sixth, and seventh years would be attended with a further and practical difficulty: for if a man
had sinned after returning, say, from the last feast of the fifth year, he would, under normal circumstances, be deprived of the opportunity of offering a sacrifice of expiation at the
sanctuary until after an interval of two years.
Moreover, we have at least three witnesses of prominent rank for the third tithe being an addition to, and not a substitute for, the second tithe. The
author of Tobit, for instance, when stating how he walked in the ways of truth and righteousness, notwithstanding the falling away of his father's family from God's command to sacrifice at
Jerusalem, makes his subject say:
"I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts, as it hath been ordained unto all Israel by an everlasting decree, having the firstfruits and the
tenths of mine increase, and that which was first shorn; and I gave them at the altar to the priests, the sons of Aaron. The tenth part of all mine increase I gave to the sons of Levi, who
ministered at Jerusalem: and the second tenth apart I sold away, and went; and spent it each year at Jerusalem: and the third I gave unto them for whom it was meet, as Deborah my father's
mother had commanded me," Tobit 1:6-8.
The foregoing quotation is the revised English version from the Vatican codex; but the reading of the Sinaitic codex is still more noteworthy. [I
translate this passage as follows: "Having the firstfruits, and the firstborn and the tithes of cattle, and the first shearing of the sheep, I proceeded to Jerusalem, and I gave them to the
priests, the sons of Aaron, at the altar; and the tenth of the wine, and of the corn, and of olive, and pomegranate, and the other fruit trees to the sons of Levi ministering in Jerusalem.
"And the second tithe I sold away for money during six years, and I used to go every year and spend it in Jerusalem. And I gave them (i.e. the tithes) to the orphans, and to the widows, and
to the strangers living among the children of Israel. I brought in and I gave (the tithes) to them in the third year, and we ate them according to the ordinance ordained concerning them in
the law of Moses and according to the commandments which Deborah, the mother of Ananeel our father, commanded."]
Again, Josephus is quite clear as to a third tithe. He writes:
"Beside those two tithes which I have already said you are to pay every year, the one for the Levites, the other for the festivals, you are to bring
every third year a tithe to be distributed to those that want; to women also that are widows, and to children that are orphans," (Josephus, Antiquities, bk. 4).
After Josephus we have the testimony of Jerome, who, like the preceding two witnesses, lived in Palestine. He says one tithe was given to the Levites,
out of which they gave a tenth to the priests; a second tithe was applied to festival purposes, and a third was given to the poor (Commentary on Ezekiel 45:1, 565. quoted in McClintock
and Strong, 10, 434). And so, evidently, Chrysostom understood, for he preaches: "What, then, did they (the Jews) give? A tenth of all their possessions, and another tenth, and after
this a third (tenth)," etc. (Homily 64 on Matthew 20:27).
Once more, for a modern opinion to the same purpose, may be instanced that of Dr. Pusey, late Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who, preaching on
Ash Wednesday, at St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, is quoted thus:
The Pharisee "paid tithes of all which he possessed: a double tithe, you will recollect, one for God's priests, the other for the sacrifices, and yet
another every third year for the poor: 4s. 8d. in the pound he anyhow gave to God, not, as our custom is, underrating property for the poor-rate, but a good 4s. 8d. in the pound on the
average of the three years," Pearson, Systematic Beneficence, p. 11.
In fact, I can find no authority in favour of this supposed triennial substitution of the third tithe for the second, until the twelfth century, when
Maimonides says that the third and sixth years second tithe was shared between the poor and the Levites, i.e. that there was no third tithe, De Jur. Paup. 6, 4. quoted in
McClintock and Strong, 10, p. 434. But even then we have a contemporary rabbi of the same century (Aben Ezra) who says: "This was a third tithe, and did not excuse the second tithe."
(See Gill on Deuteronomy 4:28.)
The reader, therefore, will judge concerning the plain statement of the law, supported by what we have seen was thought right by the author of the
book of Tobit in perhaps the third century before Christ; and also at the time of Josephus (two or three centuries later, and when tithe-paying was still practiced), (see Sacred
Tenth, pp. 79, 106) together with the testimony of Jerome (who lived in Palestine four centuries later, and may be presumed to have known how his contemporaries, at least among the
Samaritans, were paying their tithes) whether all this is not more likely to be true than a statement such as that of Maimonides, who, thought buried in Palestine, yet flourished in Spain,
but not until a thousand years after the Jewish nation had been dispersed.
As for the objection that a third tithe would be an excessive demand upon income the late Sir Monier Williams, Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, having
referred me to passages of Sanskrit law, especially the code of Manu, the oldest compendium of the laws of the Brahmans, pointed out that the usual proportion of produce taken by the king
was a sixth part (as we have seen was the case in Egypt), (see Sacred Tenth, p. 8) but that in times of necessity he might take one-fourth of the crop (Monier Williams, Indian
Wisdom, p. 264).
We may remember also that, in the time of the Maccabees, the inhabitants of Judea seem to have been taxed to the extent of one-third of their seed and
half of their fruit, I Maccabees 10:30.
For modern illustrations I would observe, that on my first visit to Bokhara, in 1882, I asked about taxes, and received widely divergent answers in
different parts of the Khanate. At one place they said that out of ten batmans of harvest they paid eight (or four-fifths) for taxes; and at another, four (or a half); and that, a matter of
fact, the beks took more and more, and as much as they pleased (Lansdell's Russian Central Asia, vol. 2. p. 187).
Again, in 1894, when travelling through most of the large towns of Italy, I was told more than once that the taxes then being levied upon the people
amounted to at least 20 per cent of their incomes. Given, then, a conscientious Italian paying 20 percent of his income to the State, and, as expected by the Council of Trent, (session 25,
ch. 12) another tithe, or 10 percent, to his church, and these demands, united, would be a heavier claim upon income than the three tithes of the law. Moreover, if Josephus could enjoin the
Jews to pay three tithes for their own religion, when they were paying also taxes to the Romans, much more might the Mosaic law require three tithes under the theocracy, especially as the
payment of these procured to the Israelite not a few of the judicial, educational, and social benefits for which other nations now pay taxes.
It would seem, then, that the Mosaic law enjoined upon the Israelite to pay yearly, in connection with his religion, two-tenths, and, at the end of
three years, a third tenth, of his income.
|
