|
This type of tithing is a voluntary covenant between God and the believer.
Jacob, a sharp bargainer, even made his compliance with the covenant's
terms conditional upon God's prior compliance:
- “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, 'If God will be with me, and will keep me
in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear,
so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall
be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s
house; and of all that you give me I will surely give one-tenth to you.'”
- (Genesis 28:20-22, NRSV).
|
|
It is a free undertaking of the believer, not a command of God. The sphere
covered by this tithing is "all," "everything." This
model of tithing will always be popular, so long as believers seek to emulate
those whom God commended. For the great majority of those who live in this
still-wealthy nation, giving one-tenth to God's work leaves them with more
than enough to live on. But the minority for whom this is not so rarely
choose to tithe, when the decision is left to them.
Taking it to the next level, some churches, including but not
limited to 'out-there' groups like the 'Oneness' Pentecostals and
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, make payment and reporting of 10% of one's income
to the church mandatory. Former members even report having been disfellowshipped
for failing to document payment of tithes. Can this practice be substantiated
from the Bible? Enter the law-giver Moses, who, it is hoped, will provide
the enforcement muscle to make even the unwilling impoverished minority pay tithes.
Moses' law includes three tithing commands which differ so widely in circumstance and intended recipient as to elicit two historic
interpretations: either these are three distinct tithes totalling not ten percent but
up to 23-1/3% of agricultural production, or these three
are the same one exaction differently described. If the latter, the interpreter must again determine whether the tithe's apportionment
amongst its several named legitimate claimants is intended to be left to individual choice by the payee, to societal negotiation,
or to some other adjudication. Medieval Jewish philosopher Moses
Maimonides cuts the knot by positing a single recipient class, 'the poor,' which
includes the Levites, on grounds that they received no inheritance: "In
the Law we meet frequently with the phrase, 'the Levite, the stranger,
and the orphan and the widow:' for the Levite is reckoned among the
poor because he had no property." (Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the
Perplexed, p. 388).
The first interpretative choice was in force the last time Moses' law was
a living law code governing a functioning society. Josephus' understanding
of the law was that it enjoined three distinct tithes: "Besides 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 third tithe to be distributed to those that want; to women also
that are widows, and to children that are orphans." (Flavius Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 8, 22). This author of course is
not for Christians an authoritative Bible interpreter, but he was
well-placed to observe how the system functioned when a society lived
under its mandates.
But this is not the only interpretive possibility. Josephus' elaboration into three distinct exactions may show the
entrepreneurial spirit at work, because the apocryphal Book of Jubilees, written about a century prior to the New Testament era,
seems to count two tithes, not three, backdated to Jacob before the law:
"And Levi discharged the priestly office at Bethel before
Jacob his father in preference to his ten brothers, and he was a priest
there, and Jacob gave his vow: thus he tithed again the tithe to the
Lord and sanctified it, and it became holy unto Him. And for this
reason it is ordained on the heavenly tablets as a law for the tithing
again the tithe to eat before the Lord from year to year, in the place
where it is chosen that His name should dwell, and to this law there is
no limit of days for ever. This ordinance is written that it may be
fulfilled from year to year in eating the second tithe before the Lord
in the place where it has been chosen, and nothing shall remain over
from it from this year to the year following." (R.
H. Charles. The Book of Jubilees (Kindle Locations 1617-1622). Chapter 32.)
A prior description of Abraham's practice makes tithing an eternal
ordinance: "And to this law there is no limit of days; for He hath
ordained it for the generations for ever that they should give to the
Lord the tenth of everything, of the seed and of the wine and of the
oil and of the cattle and of the sheep." (R. H. Charles, Book of
Jubilees, Chapter 13).
Philo Judaeus seems to count two, "As it seems to me the number
ninety is second only to the number a hundred, inasmuch as the tenth
part of it, that is to say ten, is taken away, since I see that in the
law two-tenths of the first-fruits were set apart, first a tenth of the
whole, secondly a tenth of the remainder, for when a tenth of the
fruits of the earth, of corn, or wine, or oil, is taken, another tenth
is also taken from the remainder; therefore of these two that which is
the first and principal one is honored with the greater share; and in
the second place that which follows it. . ." (Philo Judaeus, Questions
and Answers in Genesis, Book 3, Question 56).
The apocryphal Book of Tobit also seemingly counts double tithes: "I used to hurry off to Jerusalem
with the firstfruits of crops and herds, the tithes of the cattle, and
the first shearings of the sheep; and I gave them to the priests of Aaron's
line for the altar, and the tithe of wine, corn, olive oil, pomegranates
and other fruits to the Levites ministering in Jerusalem. The second tithe
for the six years I converted into money, and I went and distributed it
in Jerusalem year by year among the orphans and widows, and the converts
who had attached themselves to Israel. Every third year when I brought
it and gave it to them, we held a feast according to the rule laid down
in the law of Moses and the instructions given by Deborah the mother of
Hananiel our grandfather..." (Tobit, 1:6-8). As seen below, the
Talmud suggests rolling the second tithe into the third every third
year, leaving a total count of two tithes. So it is genuinely difficult to
arrive at a precise count which is agreed upon by all interpreters.
Not including the tithe of the tithe (Malachi 3:8), by which some recipients pass along a portion of their receipts to others,
Josephus' three tithes, with their varying expressed purposes, are as follows:
1. First Tithe (Levites):
- “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the
fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S. It is holy to the LORD...And concerning
the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the
tenth one shall be holy to the LORD.”
- (Leviticus 27:30-32).
- “Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as
an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the
tabernacle of meeting.”
- (Numbers 18:21-32).
|
|
2. Second Tithe (Festivals). Animals consecrated to the Lord are nonetheless
also consumed by human diners. The sacrificial system allotted a set portion
of the victim to the priesthood, but the farmer retains an interest in the festival tithe:
- “You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces
year by year. And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the
place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain
and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your
flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.”
- (Deuteronomy 14:22-23).
|
|
3. Third Tithe (Welfare):
- “At the end of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your produce
of that year and store it up within your gates. And the Levite, because
he has no portion nor inheritance with you, and the stranger and the fatherless
and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied,
that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.”
- (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).
|
|
Perhaps simplifying the matter, the Talmud makes the helpful
suggestion of collapsing the second tithe into the poor tithe every
third year: "If the second year from the last sabbatic year was just
ending and the third year was just beginning, then for the second year
he must give the first and second tithes, and for the third year he
must give the first and the poor tithes. Whence do we deduce that (in
the third year no second tithe was to be given)? R. Jehoshua ben Levi
says: In Deut. xxvi. 12, it is written: 'When thou hast made an end of
the tithe of produce in the third year, which is the year of the
tithing,' i.e., the year in which only one tithe is to be given.' What
is to be understood (by one tithe)? The first and poor tithes, and the
second tithe shall be omitted. But perhaps it is not so (that the first
and poor tithe are one tithe), but that the first tithe shall be also
omitted. This cannot be so, for we read [Numb. xviii. 26]: 'The tithe
which I have given you from them, for your inheritance,' etc. (From
this we see that) the Scripture compares this tithe to an inheritance,
and as an inheritance is the perpetual property of the heir, so also is
the first tithe an uninterrupted gift for the Levite." (The Babylonian
Talmud, edited by Michael L. Rodkinson, Tract Rosh Hashanah, Volume IV,
Section Moed, Kindle location 15513). This would leave the total tithe rate (restricted to agricultural produce) at 20%.
This however is not the only conceivable way of putting the pieces of
the Biblical puzzle together, because these various references, — 'first' and 'second' tithe, etc.,—
can be understood in several different ways, 'tithe of the tithe,'
tithe of cattle and of grain, or as here explained. This author also
arrives at a consolidated figure of 20%:
"An institution specially designed for the protection and
relief of the poor was the second tithe, the so-called poor’s-tithe.
The first tithe belonged to the Levites. What remained over was again
tithed, and the produce of this second tithe, devoted in the first two
years to a feast in the sanctuary at the offering of first-fruits, was
devoted in the third year to a feast in the dwelling-house, to which
the Levites and the strangers, the widows and the orphans, were invited
(Deut 14:28, 29; 26:12, 13.)—G. Uhlhorn, in “Christian Charity in the
Ancient Church,” 1883."
(Spurgeon, Charles. The Treasury of David
(Kindle Locations 89220-89224). Psalm 146. GLH Publishing.)
In their exaction of the tithe, some interpreters
roll differently named exactions into each other, for example identifying tithes with first-fruits, which may
also be counted as two different things, apportioned to different uses, as explicated
in the Apostolic Constitutions: "Let all first-fruits be brought to the
bishop, and to the presbyters. and to the deacons, for their
maintenance; but let all the tithe be for the maintenance of the rest
of the clergy, and of the virgins and widows, and of those under the
trial of poverty." (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 8, Section 4, Chapter
XXX, p. 985). Both distortions should be avoided in understanding how the
system was intended to function, both the reduplication of the same
ordinance, making one tax into several, but also collapsing two
distinct exactions into one. To arrive at the total rate of obligatory taxation,
separate exactions must be teased apart. Including also the
requirement to leave some standing grain in the fields, etc., leads to
the following total:
"Thus the prescribed religious contributions of every
Jewish layman at the time of the second Temple were as follows:
Biccurim [first-fruits] and Terumoth, say two per cent; from the ‘first of the
fleece,’ at least five shekels’ weight; from the ‘first of the
dough,’ say four per cent; ‘corners of the fields’ for the poor, say
two per cent; the first, or Levitical tithe, ten per cent; the
second, or festival tithe, to be used at the feasts in Jerusalem,
and in the third and sixth years to be the ‘poor’s tithe,’ ten per
cent; the firstlings of all animals, either in kind or money-value;
five shekels for every first-born son, provided he were the first
child of his mother, and free of blemish; and the half-shekel of the
Temple-tribute. Together, these amounted to certainly more than the
fourth of the return which an agricultural population would have."
(Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, p. 245).
That's one estimate. It may be objected that leaving interpretation of Mosaic taxation to its
recipients creates an obvious conflict of interest. These interpreters
had every incentive to multiply exactions. Did they multiply the one tithe
of scripture into two or three, out of greed for gain? But modern-day tithing advocates
also have an agenda. They assert that God has always required precisely
ten percent from His people, never more and never less. This impels them
to collapse exactions which classical commentators count as distinct, such
as first-fruits and the tithe. In Bible fact God has not always demanded
precisely ten percent; more was asked of the rich young ruler
(Luke 18:22)
and Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). While counting separate exactions leaves
us with a high rate of taxation, what welfare state, as Moses designed,
has not had a high tax rate?
It is often stated that the Mosaic tithe was an income tax:
"God Himself does not tax the land which He gives to men as
a stewardship under Him; He taxes their increase, or their production,
so that the only legitimate tax is an income tax, and this is precisely
what the tithe is— an income tax. But it is an income tax which is set
at 10 percent and no more." (Rushdoony, R. J. The
Institutes of Biblical Law, Vol. 1 (Kindle Locations 8077-8079).
Chalcedon Foundation.)
But that is just what the tithe is not. A true income tax is
agnostic as to where the money comes from, and targets all occupations
equally. Regardless of whether there were two tithes or three, the Mosaic tithe was not a tax
on income, but a set-aside of a fixed portion of agricultural production.
The increase of the flocks and the grain harvest were tithed; profit from a commercial transaction was not.
This distinction makes a real difference. Who pays and who does not? From city-dwellers
in ancient Israel, cobblers, potters, blacksmiths, soldiers,— Moses did not require
one tenth. Jesus was not required to tithe His income from carpentry, nor was Paul obliged to
tithe his income from tent-making, nor was Peter expected to pay ten
percent of his income from fishing. The tithe was a tax on one form
of production, agriculture. Also important in an agrarian society:
landless rural laborers did not pay tithes. It was not a tax on all rural
incomes, but a tax on agricultural production.
While landed proprietors
Henry and Em collect and forward one tenth of their crop, their farm
hands Hunk, Hickory and Zeke, paid in cash, do not remit one tenth of their
income. To suggest that, if Henry and Em had been able to retain 100 per
cent of their crop, they would have been able to pay Hunk, Hickory and
Zeke more, equates to saying that, if Wal-mart paid less for the goods
they import from China, they could pay their hired help more. Certainly
they could. Substituting an income tax for Moses' crop and herds tax creates a new
crop of winners and losers. Hunk, Hickory and Zeke are worse off, because
they now must pay ten percent of their income. Henry and Em are better
off, because any reasonable income tax allows payers to deduct their legitimate
cost of doing business: mortgage interest, fertilizer, irrigation, seed,
Hunk, Hickory and Zeke's wages, transport to market, etc. Some years farmers
make money, some years they don't. Yet every year farmers within Moses'
reach pay a tenth of their produce. The market mischievously penalizes
communal agricultural success; yet whether a glut sparks a price collapse
or famine a price spike, a tenth of the produce is still owed. Modern readers
find it easy to monetize farm production alongside every other commodity,
yet the Mosaic law, with its strictures on gleaning, retains an awareness
that food is different, food sustains life.
Now consider the case that causes scandal to the world: an elderly widow subsisting on Social Security of $6,000 a year. Some
preachers accuse her of 'robbing God' if she does not fork over $600. Yet who can live on $5,400 a year? They shrug, explaining that
they did not make the rules, God did. Yet God did not make this rule. God never imposed any income tax. They have reconfigured
Moses' agricultural set-aside as an income tax. Even
under the Old Testament system, this elderly widow living on cash remittances
did not owe a tenth, because she manages neither crops nor herds. Moreover,
under the Old Testament system, she was a recipient of tithed goods (Deuteronomy
14:28-29), not a payer. As will be seen again when we get to the New Testament,
transforming someone from a net recipient into a giver is an absolute change
of polarity, not an adjustment of quantity.
To this tithing advocates respond, while under Moses' law the elderly widow
does not technically owe a tenth of her cash income, the Bible clearly
sets forth the principle of giving to God. Of course it does, and many
other principles besides, including not oppressing the poor: "He will
bring justice to the poor of the people; He will save the children of the
needy, and will break in pieces the oppressor." (Psalm 72:4).
There were some voices in the early church who seem to have felt the tithing
system should continue,
“Let him use those tenths and first-fruits, which are given
according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him
dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in
on account of the poor, to the orphans, the widows, the afflicted, and
strangers in distress, as having that God for the examiner of his
accounts who has committed the disposition to him. Distribute to all
those in want with righteousness, and yourselves use the things which
belong to the Lord, but do not abuse them; eating of them, but not
eating them all up by yourselves: communicate with those that are in
want, and thereby show yourselves unblameable before God. . .Hear
attentively now what was said formerly: oblations and tithes belong
to Christ our High Priest, and to those who minister to Him. Tenths
of salvation are the first letter of the name of Jesus.” (Apostolic
Constitutions, Book 2, Section 4, Chapter XXV, pp. 810-812, ECF_0_07).
However others spoke in favor of voluntary giving. The relation between the church and the law of Moses is complex. We
know that the law is holy: "Wherefore the law is holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good." (Romans 7:12). Its social
and civil enactments are not directly binding upon the church, and yet,
just as Southern slave-owners who refused to free their slaves every
seventh year as Moses required owed God an explanation, so stingy
Christians have some explaining to do. In some cases God may be calling
for more, in others, less. Tithing goes back to the patriarchs, it
predates the law; while a good and serviceable benchmark, it cannot
endure as the only surviving regulation of Moses' polity, so that
churches which condemn 'legalism' in all other things, yet retain it in
this, because taking away the Mosaic programs which benefit the poor and
retaining only this introduces an imbalance:
|
