« PreviousContinue »
special appropriation of this “second tithe "every third year is directed, and is here expressly so termed by the LXX? (δεύτερον επιδέκατον).
Thus in the first and second years of each triad there would be payable the first or Levitical tithe, while the second or festival tithe would be brought to the sanctuary for festive uses, as ruled in Deut. xiv. 23-27.3 In the third year this latter would be specially applied to the permanent support of the non-propertied classes, “Levite, stranger," etc. So throughout twice three years, and in the seventh the land had by law respite from culture, and returned, as it were, into divine property for the time (Lev. xxv. 3–7). The law of Lev. xxvii. 31-33 relates to the conditions of “redeeming" the tithe merely, and is not noticed in Deuteronomy. It is the only passage in the Law from which we precisely learn that the tithing extended to cattle. Whether cattle were
1 This is confirmed by Amos iv. 4, whatever be the precise meaning
.there שְׁלשת ימים of his phrase
2 They seem to have read 'yu for naw of our Hebrew text there.
3 So Tobit i. 7, την δεκάτην εδίδουν ... και την δευτέραν δεκάτην .... and verse 8, kal Thiv Tplamy edidou ois kalake. And so Joseph., Ant. iv. 8,8 8 and 22, distinguishes three tithes; but the better opinion is probably that which views the third as a special limitation, qua objects, of the second. The commentators refer to the treatises of the Mishna, Peah, Ma'aseroth and Ma'aser Sheni, as establishing the same view. The law in Num. xviii. deals with the first tithe only.
* It is wrong to view such rules through the distorting medium of a modern poor-law, and the social stigma supposed to attach to those who partake of its relief. In the Hebrew state the very reverse was the case. The land was Jehovah's, the chosen people his tenants, the tithes his demand on them for the rent of it (Lev. xxvii. 30). Thus the Levite, stranger, orphan, widow, were his representatives, rather than pensioners of private bounty or public provision. The right of gleaning belonged as , much to Naomi as the field to Boaz.
5 See, however, 2 Chron. xxxi. 6.
• Some writers regard the “firstlings” of Deut. xiv. 23, and probably also of xii. 6, as tithe animals (Dict. of Bible, ii. 1071a, 2d ed., s. v. "firstborn "); but in Num. xviii. 17 and 21 “firstlings" and "tithes" belong to distinct sections. Further, Num. iii. 41, 45 takes the Levites' cattle in lieu of all the firstlings of the b'ne Israel.
tithed during the wilderness wandering is an obscure question. But unless we assume, with Wellhausen, verses 32 and 33 to have been added later, they would seem to have been so, as a custom familiar by use seems to be there referred to in the phrase "passeth under the rod." If so, they and the firstlings would furnish the altar, and help to maintain the priesthood in the wilderness.
The "fire-offerings of Jehovah” (Deut. xviii. 1) is the most comprehensive term to express all the ordinary and stated sacrifices by fire, with the meaning here implied that a portion of them only was so consumed, the residue being reserved for the priests. Of course there were “whole burntofferings,” to which this did not apply, and of these we have examples in Lev. i. 9, 13. In Lev. ii. 3, 10 we find portions expressly reserved to the priests. Lev. iii., after a ritual of peace-offerings, closes with the words, “All the fat is Jehovah's,” implying that the rest is the priests'. In Lev. iv. the sin-offerings for a priest or the whole people require (ver. 12, 21) the victim to be burnt, but in two parts: (1) the sacrificial fat, (2) the rest; but in those for individuals the former only is prescribed (ver. 26, 31, 35), the priest, by implication, having the rest, as in vii. 7 is expressly stated, for the guilt-offering. Even in a holocaust, the hide was a priestly perquisite (ver. 8). These may suffice for instances of the varying rules.
In all these Levitical chapters and in many more, the term isshe Jehovah or Layovah,"fire-offerings to Jehovah,” occurs again and again. Its distribution is a strongly marked feature of the “Priests' Code." In Ex. xxix., Leviticus, and Numbers it occurs nearly sixty times, once in Josh. xiii. 14, once in 1 Sam. ii. 28, once in Deuteronomy, viz., here. I doubt if it is found anywhere else in the entire Old
1 Amos v. 25 has sometimes been interpreted as though no such sacrifices were offered on Jehovah's altar--a total perversion of the prophet's meaning.
Testament. If it is possible for a phrase to bear the stamp of legal formality we have one so stamped here. This strongly legal phrase of the Priests' Code is thus adopted by Deuteronomy.
If we seek the reason for this term appearing in Deuteronomy which seems almost the property of the priestly vocabulary (for in Joshua it is a quotation, and in First Samuel 1.c. the reference is expressly to priestly dues), we shall find it in the fact that, as no one could fail to perceive the presence or absence of fire, it rested on a palpable fact, and was most readily popularized of all priestly terms. And since in all the variously and minutely differentiated offerings in ExodusLeviticus Numbers-known as for “sin, guilt, peace," or as simply “burnt-offerings”-fire was the prescribed or customary vehicle, the term “isshe Jehovah” comprehended them all. From all these some share or perquisite of the priests might be extracted; extending in some to every part except the blood and fat, in others to nothing beyond the hide, and perhaps limited in most to one leg and the brisket, often called in A. V. the "heave-shoulder" and "wave-breast." For all these Deuteronomy uses the term. The most comprehensive passage in the Pentateuch regarding priestly dues is that of Num. xviii. 8 foll. Ritualistic rules, like that quoted from Lev. i.-iv., regulated what was in each case to be burnt, after which the residue formed a heave-offering or wave-offering, or comprehended both. The first item in the list of Num. xviii. 8 foll. is therefore (1) “heave-offerings of holy things" (ver. 8), and these are, it seems, detailed in verse 9 under their sacrificial heads, meat, sin, etc., offerings. Next come (2) “heave-offerings of their gift with all their waveofferings”; which again are detailed in verses 12, 13, under the heads of first-fruits (described also as “ all the best,” literally “the fat") of "oil, wine and wheat” and all “first-ripe" produce in other kinds. In the next item (3) "every devoted thing in Israel,” we find a term which seems explained by Lev. xxvii. 2 as devoted under "a singular vow” (see verse 2 I there). The next class (4) is that of firstlings (verse 15), subject to the conditions of redemption, which follow as far as verse 18. Lastly (5) comes a phrase which seems to repeat the first in its “heave-offerings of holy things,” but is probably differentiated by the further words “which the b'ne Israel offer to Jehovah”-meaning spontaneously, as distinct from legal dues, and referring probably to freewill offerings and vows.
Now there is not, and need not be in Deuteronomy, any list correspondent with the above. The one which is in some measure parallel to it is that of Deut. xii. 6. But, whereas in Numbers the enumeration is of what the priests are to receive—without reckoning the tithes, which are not occasional but regular, in Deuteronomy it is of what the people are to “bring” to the sanctuary. Among these the term “tithes" occurs, meaning probably the “second tithe ” only, before referred to; since the first tithe, if assigned to the Levites territorially dispersed in their tribal cities, would more naturally be rendered on the spot. But when allowance has been made for these considerations we find a very close parallelism. Thus class I of the list in Numbers may be paired with "burnt-offerings and sacrifices”; class 2 with “heaveofferings of your hand.” “Vows and freewill offerings” represent class 5, and probably include class 3; while“ firstlings" have their place expressly in both lists (4). But we see how the finer technicalities of Numbers are sunk in the broadly graded order of Deuteronomy, “meat, sin, etc., offerings,' and “wave-offerings," all disappearing in its more summary generalizations.
The fact that part of Deut. xviii. 3 is quoted nearly
1 The well-known word ogn, with cognate verb oos (mostly in hiphil form), used of whatever is "devoted,” sometimes to destruction under a verbatim in i Sam. ii. 13, there to introduce a deliberate breach by Eli's sons of the law as here laid down, can hardly be accidental. Here “the priest's custom with the people is his “dueạ from the people," as laid down in Deut. xviii. 3, consisting of “the shoulder, two cheeks” (doubtless including the tongue), "and the maw” (probably the fourth stomach of the ruminant), to which selection of parts a symbolical meaning has perhaps fancifully been attached by some commentators. Whether these perquisites were additions to, or substitutes for, all or any of parts reserved for the priests by the ritual of Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, has been much debated. But if we give due weight to the word "fire-offerings" in Deut. xviii. I, as the perquisites in verse 3 are evidently something over and above whatever the priests enjoyed from those offerings, it seems hardly doubtful that they are additions, the rather as the “first shearing of thy sheep" is unquestionably an addition to “the first-fruits* of corn, wine, and oil" (verse 4), which form, as we saw above, an important item in the dues, as fixed in Num. xviii. 12. The phrase "custom with the people” clearly means “ with the individual Israelite" coming with a sacrifice on his private account,
1 The word curiously reflects the English use of the word “customs" which we retain still for the oldest trade-dues levied by the Crown, and which, although now for centuries depending on and regulated by statute, yet carry us back to that period when statute was not. Somewhat similarly the word "excise” reflects the ideas of the LXX translators in their rendering of “heave-offerings" (179:79) by åpa peua or sometimes by áowplo uévov (Num. xviii. 24; cf. 27-29), as something cut out of, or taken away from, a larger bulk.
The phrase is all but identical in the two, as a comparison of the Hebrew will show. By rendering “due from ” in one, and “custom with" in the other, passage, the A. V. obscures this important identity.
3 The Mishna (Cholin x. 1) interprets these perquisites as relating to animals killed for food under the law of Lev. xvii. 3, 4, and the Levitical perquisites to those offered in sacrifice.
* The word nix? (lit. “ beginning," as in Gen, i. 1) occurs here, and in Deut. xviii. 14, as an incidental link of implied reference.