LEVITICAL INHERITANCE THROUGH SEPARATION
The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them (Deut. 18:1-2).This was a land law. It had to do with landed inheritance inside the boundaries of Israel. Inheritance through separation was basic to the Mosaic covenant.(1) God separated Israel from the nations. The theocentric focus of this priestly law is God's identification of Himself as the Levites' inheritance. They would inherit an office that allowed them geographic proximity to God's dwelling place in the tabernacle. The cost of this inheritance was their forfeiture of any inheritance in rural Israel. God separated them for service to Him. He therefore separated them judicially from their brethren. The economic mark of this judicial separation was two-fold: their lack of jubilee-guaranteed landed inheritance and their lawful claim on the tithe.
Levites could not normally inherit rural land, according to the jubilee laws. Instead, they were entitled to a tithe from their brethren. There was a reason for this: the other tribes did not have lawful access to tabernacle service. The separation of Levi from rural land was an aspect of God's separation of the other tribes from His presence. God identified Himself as the Levites' inheritance. The Levites' inheritance of God was accompanied by their legal claim on the tithe.
And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation. Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle of the congregation, lest they bear sin, and die. But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance. But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance (Num. 18:20-24).
The connection between the tithe and liturgical service is obvious in this text. The Levites alone had control over the sacrifices; therefore, they alone had a legal claim on the tithe. There was nothing voluntary about this claim on the productivity of others. As surely as an Israelite had to worship God according to the ritual requirements of the tabernacle, so did he have to pay his tithe to the Levites. His payment was for services rendered: atoning services rendered to God in the name of the people. The tithe had nothing to do with non-liturgical services to the community, such as teaching, music, or anything else. The Israelite had no independent authority to send his tithe to agents who met his social needs or anyone else's.(2) The tithe went to God through His church. No other agency had a legal claim on the tithe. This has not changed in New Testament times.
What has changed is the tribal aspect of the tithe. The Levites' inheritance was part of the tribes' lack of inheritance in rural land. This made the tithe a matter of civil law, just as the enforcement of the jubilee year was the be civil. The Levites possessed an enforceable claim on the tithe. The church does not.
The Geography of Mosaic Inheritance The Levites could not inherit rural land except in a very special situation, when a priest inherited land because of an owner's broken vow of land pledged to God (Lev. 27:20-21).(3) As an heir of God, a priest could inherit this land under the provisions of the jubilee. Under no other circumstances could a Levite inherit rural land. He could only lease it until the next jubilee.
By separating Levites from rural land, the Mosaic law prevented the centralization of landed wealth by the one tribe that had no geographical boundaries: Levi. The Levites would have to content themselves with tithe money, offerings, and owning urban real estate, which was not under the jubilee's provisions in non-Levitical walled cities. Within their own cities, the jubilee year did apply to Levites (Lev. 25:33). This kept Levites tied geographically to cities, which were located inside the boundaries of specific tribal allotments. Their regional influence would come through their urban wealth and their social position as counsellors who were experts in God's law. It would not come through their amassing of rural land: pockets of civil influence inside other tribal communities. There was citizenship possible inside cities, for covenant-keeping men had access to membership in God's holy army, but their citizenship was by adoption into a tribe. If this was the tribe of Levi, its influence was mainly indirect: not through votes inside another tribe's council but rather through non-voting theological and judicial influence.
The other tribes were required to keep their distance from the inner courts of the tabernacle. It meant death for them to approach the holy of holies, where the Ark of the Covenant rested: death by armed Levites or death by God (Num. 3:5-10). The concentric boundaries of the holy of holies were protected by the armed representatives of the three Levitical families: Merari (outermost ring), Gershon, and Kohath (innermost ring).(4) After Israel's return from the Babylonian captivity, there was no further mention of the Ark. The holy of holies still remained holy in Israel, but there was no longer a pair of the original covenantal documents inside the Ark.
The Bible does not say whether the tithes were collected locally, then sent to a central warehouse, and then redistributed nationally to every Levite on some pro-rated share. The high expense of transporting goods implies that Levites were paid from local storehouses. This meant that the prosperity of a local Levite was dependent on the prosperity of residents in his region. The Levite was economically dependent on the local community's success.
A Levite could volunteer for service at the tabernacle (Deut. 18:6). This service was sacramental (v. 7). Sacramental service mandated equal income for services rendered, but the Levite could also receive income from the long-term leasing out of his inheritance (v. 8). Income from sacramental service was tithe-free; income from the sale-lease of his property or other investments had to be tithed.(5) If he had owned a house in a Levitical city, he could lease it out to someone else. He had the right to return and buy back his property at any time (Lev. 25:32). His house would be returned to him or his heirs in the jubilee (Lev. 25:33).
The unique geographical presence of God with members of one tribe established this tribe's legal claim on a tenth of the net income of their brethren. The text speaks of God as the Levites' inheritance (v. 1). This inheritance was geographical, occupational, and revelational.
Geographical Separation
The Levites served God inside the geographical boundaries surrounding the Ark of the Covenant: a radius of 2,000 cubits. Joshua told the invading tribes: "Yet there shall be a space between you and it, about two thousand cubits by measure: come not near unto it, that ye may know the way by which ye must go: for ye have not passed this way heretofore" (Josh. 3:4). This was the same distance of ownership of land surrounding the Levitical cities. "And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about. And ye shall measure from without the city on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the cities" (Num. 35:4-5).
The Levites had to defend the Ark of the Covenant. This responsibility was in part liturgical and in part covenantal: an aspect of the oath. They lawfully possessed the authority of the sword inside the boundaries of the tabernacle area (II Chron. 23:7). Because of the holiness of the Ark, the Levites had a unique geographical calling before God and men. The Levites' roots in Israel were tied to the Ark of the Covenant and the sacrifices and defense associated with it.
Land was basic to the Mosaic law's system of inheritance. Land was part of the seed laws, which also dealt with inheritance. The Levites were God's inheritance in Israel. God set them apart for special service to Him. He did not let them place their financial hopes on rural land, which was the inheritance of the other tribes. This was a major advantage to the Levites, for there could be no legitimate hope in rural land if Israel kept God's covenant law. The multiplication of the Israelite population -- long life (Ex. 20:12) coupled with no miscarriages (Ex. 3:26) -- would have shrunk the size of each inheriting generation's family plot.(6) We might even call this God's plot against family plots. The Levites would have been owners of urban real estate, which would rise in value as Israelites moved from the farms and aliens moved to Israel. God placed them in the geographical centers of future economic growth, assuming that the nation kept God's covenant. Teaching the nation to do this was a major task of the Levites. God attached a positive economic sanction to the success of the Levites' calling. They would do well by doing good. The value of their inheritance would grow.
The Levites would speak for God throughout the land. Their separation from tribal land made them a dispersed tribe. Their separation from the other tribes locally was an aspect of their separation from the other tribes liturgically.
The Levites' Occupational Separation No other tribe could offer formal burnt offerings to God. They were the designated intermediaries in between God and members of the other tribes. In payment for the services associated with sacrifices, the Levites were to receive tithes and offerings. The priests of the sanctuary -- the holy, set-apart area -- who were selected from the family of Aaron (Num. 18:1), were to receive a tithe of this tithe (Num. 18:26).
This specialized and judicially restricted liturgical service had to be funded. Because liturgical service was mandatory for the renewal of both the ecclesiastical and civil covenants,(7) it was funded by a mandatory tithe. This was not a voluntary payment, for attendance was not voluntary. This payment moved upward from individuals to Levites because of God's appointment of the Levites as His covenantal spokesmen in the national hierarchy. There was a top-down flow of ecclesiastical authority from God to the people, and the Levites were at the top of this earthly hierarchy. They possessed a monopoly because of their proximity to the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the two stone tablets of the law, the founding covenantal documents.(8) That Levites were the nation's senior spokesmen is indicated by the fact that they, not the State, had a specified claim on the net income of the nation, and that any attempt on the part of a king to collect an equally large percentage of income was tyrannical (I Sam. 8:15, 17). The church, not the State or the family, was the central institution in Israel.(9)
The Levites' lawful claim on covenant-keeping men's income was based on their God-ordained monopoly of liturgical service. Their occupation was closed to members of other tribes. To become a Levite, a man had to be adopted into the tribe, and this required the payment of an expensive entry fee by the adoptee on behalf of himself and every member of his family (Lev. 27:2-8).(10)
The Levites' Revelational Separation The high priest had access to God's word directly. He possessed the urim and thummim. "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually" (Ex. 28:30). "And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of Urim before the LORD: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation" (Num. 27:21).
Furthermore, the priests had access to the written Mosaic law and the written revelation of the Bible. At some point, probably early in Israel's history, these scrolls were copied down for use locally by the other Levites. The decentralized system of synagogues in Jesus' day used scrolls of the Bible (Luke 4:17). Access to written revelation made the Levites specialists in rendering judgment, both civil and ecclesiastical. But this occupational specialization was not uniquely the possession of the Levites. Judges had equal civil authority (Deut. 17:8-13).(11)
The Prophet's Separation
The priesthood shared this declarative authority with prophets. More than this: the prophet had a superior authority. The prophet's authority was greater than the king's (II Sam. 12) and the priesthood's. Moses' authority as a prophet (Deut. 34:10) was greater than Aaron's authority as a priest. But the office was a temporary one, and any misuse of it was a capital crime.
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:18-22).
With greater authority comes greater responsibility. False prophecy was a capital crime in Israel because the prophet was the supreme judicial authority. The proof of his authority was his ability to invoke successfully God's direct sanctions. But he was not to rule on a throne or offer sacrifices in the temple. His was not a permanent office. He was called by God to render supreme judgment in times of national apostasy when civil judges and Levites were not speaking God's word, and who were therefore speaking the word of another god. His authority was based on God's direct revelation to him and God's imposition of sanctions invoked by him. He was the designated agent, called directly by God, who brought a formal covenant lawsuit against the nation, which included the nation's ordained leaders.
Because the prophet did not possess a permanent office, he had no lawful claim on anyone's income. Such a claim is possessed only by someone who is ordained by God through a formal process of ordination. Ordination is both institutional and covenantal. It is invoked by covenantal oath. The prophet's calling was not necessarily so invoked.
The prophet was not necessarily a member of a Levitical family that possessed a lawful covenantal claim on any other family's money. This issue has nothing to do with contractual claims, which are not established by covenantal oath. Here I am speaking of covenantal claims that can be transferred by oath to a successor. A king normally transferred to his son his legal claim on a portion of the income of the people. The son's right of kingly inheritance had to be confirmed by ecclesiastical anointing, as Solomon's was (I Ki. 1:39).(12) A Levite could pass to his sons his legal claim to tithes and offerings. A prophet did not possess any such claim; so, his son could not inherit it.
The Levites possessed no claim of immediate revelation from God except through the high priest. Their expertise in the law was occupational. That is, their claim to knowledge of revelation was not a monopoly. It was shared by civil judges. The Levites had a claim on men's income. So did civil judges. The prophet did not. God's direct revelation to and direct calling of the prophet were not accompanied by a legal claim on someone else's money. The office of Levite and judge, which did involve such a legal claim, did not imply access to direct revelation. The prophet's authority rested solely on his possession of direct revelation from God, yet he had no lawful economic claim in his capacity as a prophet. Any assertion by a prophet of a covenantally authorized claim on someone else's money would have constituted prima facie evidence of the illegitimacy of his call by God. Court prophets hired by the king or appointed under his authority were sure to be false prophets. Judah's King Jehoshaphat suspected as much when he heard Ahab's 400 hundred prophets assure the two kings that they would be victorious over the Syrians. He asked for a second opinion. He wanted to hear from a prophet who was not on Ahab's payroll (I Ki. 23:7).
The Levites were separated by God to study His law and pronounce judgments. This separation was an aspect of the division of labor. Not only was it a generational phenomenon, unlike the prophet's office, it was not monopolistic. It was shared by civil judges. Their knowledge was therefore based on specialized study rather than uniquely supernatural intervention by God. Their inheritance was based on liturgical separation, not revelational separation. Revelational separation, which the prophet possessed, was not accompanied by legal claims on other people's income. This made the prophetic office not only highly risky judgmentally -- imprisonment or death if you prophesied accurately to unrighteous leaders, execution if you prophesied falsely to righteous men -- but risky economically. Prophesying was a calling,(13) not an occupation.
Conclusion The Levites possessed no guaranteed inheritance in rural land. They did possess a jubilee-guaranteed inheritance inside Levitical cities (Lev. 25:33). As a substitute for landed inheritance, God gave them as their inheritance a claim to a tithe on other men's net income. This made them dependent on the productivity of other men.
Their ecclesiastical claim on other men's income was based on the liturgical monopoly which they possessed. This monopoly had a geographical aspect. Only Levites could lawfully approach the innermost sanctum of the tabernacle, and only the high priest could enter it. The Ark of the Covenant was the holiest object in Israel. It had to be defended. The Levites possessed this occupational assignment. They retained it after their return from Babylon, although the Ark seems to have disappeared. This assignment ended when the Romans destroyed the temple in A.D. 70.
Their civil claim on other men's income was based on their lawful inheritance of the tithe in lieu of rural land. This civil claim ended in A.D. 70.
Footnotes:
1. Gary North, Leviticus: An Economic Commentary (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 21.
2. Gary North, Tithing and the Church (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1994), ch. 9.
3. North, Leviticus, ch. 37.
4. Gary North, Sanctions and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Numbers (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1996), ch. 3.
5. Ibid., pp. 66-67.
6. North, Leviticus, pp. 416-22.
7. Families also participated in the national feasts, but they did so as members of the ecclesiastical community. The feasts were not means of family covenant renewal, for there are no means of family covenant renewal. The family covenant of the marriage partners is broken only by death, either biological or covenantal. Ray R. Sutton, Second Chance: Biblical Blueprints for Divorce and Remarriage (Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987), ch. 2. It is lawfully broken when children leave their parents' household to marry (Gen. 2:24). A failure to participate in a mandatory feast did not break the legal requirements of a family, such as staying married or honoring parents. An individual Israelite was required to attend, whether or not he was a member of a family. A circumcised stranger could also attend, although to gain this privilege, any male in his household also had to be circumcised (Ex. 12:48).
8. Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1975), Part 2, ch. 1.
9. This is equally true today. The church extends into eternity (Rev. 21, 22). The family and the State do not.
10. North, Leviticus, ch. 36.
11. See Chapter 39.
12. Jehoiada the priest rallied the Levites to defend the kingship of Joash. The Levites defended the young king by means of swords (II Chron. 23:1-8).
13. I define a calling as the most important work a person can do in which he would be most difficult to replace. Only rarely is a person's calling his occupation. My calling is to write this economic commentary. I do not get paid to do this.
If this book helps you gain a new understanding of the Bible, please consider sending a small donation to the Institute for Christian Economics, P.O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. You may also want to buy a printed version of this book, if it is still in print. Contact ICE to find out. icetylertx@aol.com