Tithes vs. Taxes

For many on the Christian Left, the income tax and welfare state are simply an extension of the idea of tithes. The Old Testament tithes function much like an income tax. Christians are supposed to give to help the poor. Put the two ideas together and the income tax/welfare state combination is simply the state enforcing part of Christian morality just as laws against polygamy, prostitution or working on Sunday are. As such, secularists could argue against the income tax and the welfare state on the same grounds as they argue against blue laws and nativity scenes on government property; a few – especially some followers of Ayn Rand – do just that.

I have objections to the current arrangement as well, but they are more subtle, a combination of the practical and the theological. On the practical side, the current welfare state is failing. Yes, we have fat poor people, but we also have a hideously complex tax system, a government going bankrupt, and a large dependent class. On the theological side, the income tax as a replacement for tithes conflates separate ideas.

• The Old Testament tithes were part of a system of mandated morality, but they were not the basis of a welfare system. (And the tithes themselves may have been voluntary as we’ll see below.)
• New Testament giving is the basis for a system of voluntary charity. A tithe to the poor does mesh well with New Testament teaching but getting the state to enforce Christian morality does not.

You might think I am nitpicking above, but the distinctions are important. A state mandated income tax is inherently complicated – even so for a flat tax. Charity is a very personal matter. With many givers who have personal knowledge of the recipients, ignorance of the economics of charity is made up for in part by flexibility, competition and the personal touch. With a government mandated welfare system, we must pay extra attention to economic incentives else very bad things happen.

The Old Testament does give us an example welfare system, one which incorporates subtle ideas of economics and natural rights. But said welfare system was not a matter of tithing and charity. If we on the Christian Left are to call for a state mandated welfare system, it behooves us to study the example given to us in the Bible, for there we can find much wisdom. Conversely, if we go back to the more spiritually fulfilling system of voluntary charity, it also behooves us to study the ancient welfare system. Voluntary donations rarely match tax receipts, so efficiency is important if we truly care about the plight of the poor.

Below we shall look at the original system of tithes and see how they played a very minor role in taking care of the poor. In subsequent chapters we will look at the many other provisions for the poor under Old Testament Law, the underlying principles of economics and natural rights, and possible modern implementations.

The First Tithe

The first tithe went to the Levites, not to the poor. When the Israelites conquered Canaan, each tribe was allotted farm land save for the Levites. The Levites were given cities only, with but a small amount of surrounding land. The tithe to the Levites was thus compensation for landlessness, not a general income tax. The tithes described above applied to crops and farm animals only. Merchants, manufacturers and wage earners did not have to pay this tithe! (They were under the more open-ended mandate in Deuteronomy 16 cited at the beginning of this chapter.)

To many a modern mind, a “tax” on farmers only seems unfair. Today, we who live in developed nations multiply our labor with a tremendous amount of capital. In ancient times, capital was a much smaller factor in the economy; the primary multiplier of labor was land. The Old Testament Law recognized this fact several ways, including tithing requirement on farm products. Theologically, the tithe to the Levites was a proxy for a tithe directly to the Creator of the land.

This tithe was thus more a Georgist land rent more than a general income tax. But instead of assessing ground value, as Henry George advocated, this “tax” taxed the output of the land. (For a modern analog, some commercial real estate owners charge gross receipts percentage on top of a fixed rent.) This tithe differed from the modern income tax in another very important respect: enforcement. Net income is a fuzzy concept. How much did that tool really depreciate this year? Was that business trip really for business or was it a vacation in disguise? These and many other questions make income tax enforcement inherently complex even if we were to go to a simplified flat tax. The tithe described above is simple in that they are a fixed percentage of a finite set of outputs. They functioned more like payroll taxes or excise taxes than as a general income tax.

That is, the first tithe was a simple tax if it was a tax at all. The passages above have no enforcement provisions. What was the penalty for noncompliance? Who enforced compliance? Was this tithe a matter of enforced law or an act of personal faith? The text is unclear.

Under the New Testament the text is clearer: no enforcement save perhaps by shunning. Where the New Testament is less clear is to whom to pay this tithe – if this tithe is applicable at all. The New Testament deprecates the Levitical priesthood in favor of Jesus as high priest. Elsewhere I make the case that we give to Jesus by giving to help the poor, so under the New Covenant this tithe should now go for charity. But some would make the case that Jesus set up a new priesthood to replace the Levites, and they do have some passages to back up their claim. See The New Levites for a deeper study of the subject.

The Second Tithe

The second tithe was for celebration. You didn’t give this tithe away, you used it to party! And yes, the party could include booze—so much for the prohibitionists.

This tithe has no similarity to the modern income tax. It’s much more like the money we blow on celebrating Christmas or Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is the better parallel, as two of the three holy seasons were at harvest time, and the fun centered on food and drink. (Christmas may well be a repackaged pagan celebration of the return of the sun. The Puritans thus banned Christmas, and some strict Christian denominations do likewise today.)

Since the Temple was destroyed, there is no appointed gathering place for these festivals. Methinks God allowed the Temple to be destroyed to allow Christianity to spread beyond a convenient distance from Jerusalem while still being in compliance with the Law – but this is conjecture. Maybe this tithe should be the source of funding for local church buildings as they are part of the cost of celebrating before the Lord.

The Third Tithe

The third tithe did indeed go to the poor – at least in part:

On the third year a tithe went to both the Levites and to the poor. Was this an additional tithe? Or was this simply a different designation for the first tithe for the third year? Or, was tithing limited to the third year? The text is unclear, but I read this as an additional special offering for the third year.

Regardless, these passages indicate tithes for the poor only on the third year. In other words, we have less than a 3.3% annual tax on farm income designated for the poor! But that is assuming that “the third year” means every third years. For reasons I’ll explain later, I believe “the third year” meant the third year in the seven year cycle of Sabbath years. If I am correct, tithing contributed less than 1.4%/year on average toward feeding the poor. Rather stingy, indeed!

Stingy, if tithing was the basis for taking care of the poor. Under the Old Covenant, it was not. The third tithe was but a small supplement to the real welfare system, which we shall begin investigating next.