B. IN CRITICISM
III. TAXES IN ISRAEL UNDER CONQUERORS
internal resources for carrying on his ambitious schemes imperative. The boundaries of his kingdom are specified (<110421>1 Kings 4:21 (Hebrew 5:1)) together with the amount of his income (<111014>1 Kings 10:14,28; compare
<120301>
2 Kings 3:4). It is also stated that other kingdoms paid tribute to him.
His system of fiscal administration was very thoroughly organized. He put the whole country under twelve officers (to specify one feature) whose business was to provide, by months, provisions for the court (<110407>1 Kings 4:7-19). Under Solomon also, for the first time, so far as we know, Israelites were compelled to render forced labor (<110513>1 Kings 5:13-17). By the end of his reign the burden of taxation had become so severe that in the public address made to Rehoboam the people demanded a lightening of the
“grievous service” of Solomon as the condition of their fealty to his successor. Rehoboam’s foolish answer of defiance precipitated the separation of the tribes which proved in the end so disastrous. During the period of prophetic activity which follows, one recurring specification in the denunciations uttered by the prophets against the kings was the excessive burden of taxation imposed upon the people. Amos speaks of
“exactions of wheat taken from the poor” (5:11; compare 2:6-8). In 7:1 he incidentally refers to a custom which has grown up of rendering to the king the first mowings of grass. Isaiah speaks of eating up the vineyards and taking the spoil of the poor (3:14). Micah, with even greater severity, denounces rulers “who eat the flesh of my people” (3:1-4). These citations are sufficient to show that all through the later monarchy the Israelites suffered more or less from official rapacity and injustice.
Israel, a contemporary of Ahaz, was reduced to tribute; later, upon his neglect to pay, he was put in prison (<121704>2 Kings 17:4). A little later still, Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, was deposed by Pharaoh-necoh, who placed a tribute upon the land of a hundred talents of silver and one of gold (<122331>
2 Kings 23:31-33). Jehoiakim, the puppet king, raised this tribute by a special tax upon the people (<122334>2 Kings 23:34,35). This latter passage is especially interesting because it seems to indicate (<122335>2 Kings 23:35 f) a graduated system of taxation supposedly honored more often in the breach than in the observance. This same unfortunate Jehoiakim came under the heavy hand of Nebuchadnezzar (<122401>2 Kings 24:1-7). This latter ruler seems not to have levied a special tribute, at least it is not mentioned; but
reimbursed himself for the expenses of conquest by carrying away to Babylon the vessels of the temple (<143607>
2 Chronicles 36:7).
2. Under the Persians:
In Ezr 4:13, a part of a letter addressed to Artaxerxes by officials “west of the river” (see whole passage Ezr 4:7-24) who were hostile to the Jews, it is charged that in the event of rebuilding the city the inhabitants would not pay “tribute, custom, or toll.” These three words, which are evidently combined in a formula and indicate three distinct classes of taxes, are interesting as being characteristic of the Persian period.
The three words are:
(1) hD;mi [middah] = “tribute” (Ezr 4:13,10; compare <160504>
Nehemiah 5:4, where the expression is “king’s tribute”);
(2) wOlB] [belo] = according to Gesenius under the word: “tax on articles consumed” or “excise”. (HDB “impost”) (Ezr 4:13,10; 7:24);
(3) _]l;h} [halakh] = “road-toll” or “custom tax” (Ezr 4:13,10; 7:24).
These Assyrian words are to be contrasted with the words used elsewhere:
(1) sm” [mac] = “forced labor” (<110513>1 Kings 5:13 (Hebrew 5:27);
compare ut sup. <061610>
Joshua 16:10; 17:13; <070128>
Judges 1:28,30,33,35;
<052011>Deuteronomy 20:11; <170901>Esther 10:1);
(2) ac;m” [massa’] = “burden” (<141711>2 Chronicles 17:11);
(3) sk,m, [mekhec] =“measure,” used of tribute exacted for Yahweh, taken from people, cattle, and spoil, etc. (<043125>Numbers 31:25-31). From this enumeration and comparison it will be seen that the Hebrew had no general word corresponding to the English word “tax.”
To return to the situation in the Persian period, it is evident that the Persian rulers exacted practically the same classified tributes, direct and indirect, that are found elsewhere. It is recorded that Artaxerxes, in response to the letter of his officers in Palestine (Ezr 4:21), stopped the work of the rebuilding of Jerusalem in anticipation of the refusal of the Jewish leaders to pay taxes. The work was resumed in the 2nd year of Darius under the protection of a royal decree which gave to the Jewish authorities a sufficient amount from the “tribute beyond the river” to finish without delay.
Artaxerxes, in addition to his generous gifts, exempted the priests and temple-servants from all taxation (Ezr 7:24). In the days of Nehemiah a serious condition arose. The king’s tribute was so heavy that the Jewish common people were compelled to borrow money upon mortgages, and in so doing fell into the hands of usurers of their own people, by whom they were so impoverished as to be compelled to sell their sons and daughters into slavery (<160501>Nehemiah 5:1-13). In addition to the royal tribute, they were forced to support the governors who were entitled to bread, wine and forty shekels of silver annually (<160514>
Nehemiah 5:14,15). In the prayer offered on the fast day (Nehemiah 9) it was asserted that their burdens of taxation were so heavy that they were servants in their own land
(<160936>Nehemiah 9:36,37).
3. Under the Ptolemies and Seleucid Kings:
The Ptolemies, who practically controlled Palestine from 301 to 218 BC, do not appear to have been excessive in their demands for tribute (twenty talents for Jews (Ant., XII, iv, 1) seems no great amount), but the custom which they introduced, or at least established, of farming the taxes to the highest bidder, introduced a principle which prevailed through all the subsequent history and was the cause of much popular suffering and
discontent. The story of Joseph, the Jewis tax-collector (Ant., XII, iv, 1-5), who was for 23 years farmer-general of taxes for Palestine under Ptolemy Euergetes, and the cause of “a long train of disasters” is peculiarly
significant for the student of the New Testament.
The conquest of Palestine by Antiochus the Great (202 BC) brought a certain amount of relief to the “storm-tossed” (Josephus) Jews of Palestine, as of old the buffer state between contending powers. According to
Josephus (Ant., XII, iii, 3), Antiochus gave the Jews generous gifts in money, remitted their taxes for three years, and permanently reduced them one-third (see Kent’s discussion of the credibility of these statements, Historical Series for Bible Students, Babylonian, Persian, Greek Periods, 296).
That the Selucid kings were particularly severe in their exactions is clearly shown in the letter of Demetrius to the Jews, whose favor he was seeking in rivalry with Alexander Balas of Smyrna, the pretender to the Selucid throne (see 1 Macc 10:26-30; 11:34,35; 13:39; compare 11:28).
In this quoted letter Demetrius promises the following exemptions: from (1) “tributes” ([fo>roi, phoroi] = “polltaxes”);
(2) tax on salt;
(3) crown taxes ([ste>fanoi, stephanoi] = “crowns of gold” or their equivalents);
(4) the tribute of one-third of the seed;
(5) another of one-half of the fruit of the trees (1 Macc 10:29,30). This seems almost incredibly severe, but evidence is not lacking of its
probability (Lange’s Commentary Apocrypha, edition 1901, 525). With Selcucus IV (187-176 BC) the Jews felt for the first time, indirectly but powerfully, the pressure of Rome. This disreputable ruler had to pay tribute to Rome as well as to find means whereby to gratify his own passion for luxury, and was correspondingly rapacious in the treatment of his subjects (2 Macc 3).
4. Under the Romans:
During the early part of the Heroadian epoch, taxes were paid to the king and collected by officers appointed by him. This method which worked fairly well, at least under Herod the Great, had passed away before any books of the New Testament were written. After the deposition of Archelaus (6 AD), at the request of the Jews themselves, Judea was incorporated into the Roman empire and put under procurators who were in charge of all financial administration, although the tetrarchs still
collected the internal taxes. This fact conditions all that is to be said about
“tribute” and “publicans” in connection with the New Testament. It is to be noted first of all (a fact that is often overlooked by the student) that in the imperial era the direct taxes were not farmed out, but collected by regular imperial officers in the regular routine of official duty. The customs or tolls levied upon exports and imposts, and upon goods in the hands of
merchants passing through the country, were sold to the highest bidders, who were called publicans.
With this distinction clearly in mind we may dismiss the subject of general taxation with the following remarks: First that the taxes in Judea went to the imperial treasury (<402217>Matthew 22:17; <411214>Mark 12:14; <422022>Luke 20:22);
second that these taxes were very heavy. These two facts explain why the question of paying tribute to Caesar, which our Lord was obliged to meet, was so burning an issue. It touched at once religious and financial interest
— a powerful combination. In 7 AD, immediately after the appointment of Coponius as procurator, Quirinius (see Quirinius, New Testament
Chronology, etc.) was sent to Judea to take a census ([ajpografh>, apographe]) for the purpose of poll-tax ([kh~nsov, kensos], [fo>rov, phoros], or [ejpikefa>laion, epikephalaion] (<402217>Matthew 22:17;
<411213>Mark 12:13,14; <422020>Luke 20:20 ff)). This census was the occasion for
the bloody uprising of Judas of Gamala (or Galilee) (<440537>
Acts 5:37;
compare Ant, XVIII, i 1, 6).As a matter of historical faxct this same census was the occasion of the final destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, for the fierce antagonism to Rome which was aroused at that time never died out until it was extingushed in blood, 70 AD.
We are now free to discuss thos matters which center in a general way about the term “publican.” According to Stapfer (PTC, 215) this term ([telw>nhv, telones]) is commonly used to cover several grades of minor officials engaged in the customs service. The word was extended in meaning from the publicanus, properly so called, the farmer-general of a province, to his subordinate local officils. The publicans of the New Testament “examined the goods and collected tolls on roads and bridges”
(Stapfer, op. cit., 216; compare <400909>
Matthew 9:9). These tolls (Latin, portoria; Greek [te>lh, tele]) were collected in Palestine at Caesarea, Capernaum and Jericho (Josephus, BJ, II, xiv, 4). Those collected at Capernaum went into the treasury of Herod Antipas. At Jericho there was a chief publican ([ajrcitelw>nhv, architelones]), but most of the publicans
mentioned in the New Testament were probably subordinate to men higher in authority.
Sufficient cause for the unpopularity of publicans in New Testament times is not far seek. Hatred of paying duties seems to be ingrained in human nature. Customs officials are always unpopular. The method is necessarily inquisitorial. The man who opens one’s boxes and bundles to appraise the value of what one has, is at best a tolerated evil. In Judea, under the
Roman system, all circumstances combined to make the publican the object of bitter hatred. He represented and exercised in immediate contact, at a sore spot with individuals, the hatred power of Rome. The tax itself was looked upon as an inherent religious wrong, as well as civil imposition, and by many the payment of it was considered a sinful act of disloyalty to God.
The tax-gatherer, if a Jew, was a renegade in the eyes of his patriotic fellows. He paid a fixed sum for the taxes, and received for himself what he could over and above that amount. The ancient and widespread curse of arbitrariness was in the system. The tariff rates were vague and indefinite (see Schurer, HJP, I, ii, 67 f). The collector was thus always under the suspicion of being an extortioner and probably was in most instances. The name was apt to realize itself. The unusual combination in a publican of petty tyrant, renegade and extortioner, made by circumstances almost inevitable, was not conductive to popularity. In the score of instances in the New Testament where publicans are mentioned, their common status, their place in the thought and action of Jesus, their new hope in the gospel are clearly set forth. The instances in which our Lord speaks of them are especially illuminating:
(1) He uses them on the basis of the popular estimate which the disciples undoubtedly shared, to point in genial irony a reproach addressed to His hearers for their low standard of love and forgiveness (<400546>
Matthew 5:46,47).
(2) He uses the term in the current combination in giving directions about excommunicating a persistently unrepentant member of the church (<401817>
Matthew 18:17).
(3) He uses the term in the popular sense in describing the current condemnation of His attitude of social fellowship with them, and constructively accepts the title of “friend of publicans and sinners”
(<401119>Matthew 11:19; <420734>Luke 7:34).
(4) Most significant of all, Jesus uses the publican, as He did the Samaritan, in a parable in which the despised outcast shows to advantage in an attitude acceptable to God (<421809>
Luke 18:9 ff).
This parable is reinforced by the statement, made more than once by our Lord, that the readiness to repent shown by the publicans and other
outcasts usually found with them was more promising of salvation than the spiritual pride shown by some who were satisfied with themselves
(<420312>Luke 3:12; compare 7:29; <402131>Matthew 21:31,32; <421501>Luke 15:1). The
choice of Levi as a disciple (<401003>Matthew 10:3, etc.) and the conversion of Zaccheus (<421908>Luke 19:8 f), of whom Jesus speaks so beautifully as a son of Abraham (<421909>Luke 19:9), justified the characteristic attitude which our Lord adopted toward the despised class, about equally guilty and
unfortunate. He did not condone their faults or crimes; neither did He accept the popular verdict that pronounced them unfit for companionship with the good and without hope in the world. According to the teaching and accordant action of jesus, no man or woman is without hope until the messenger of hope has been definitely rejected.
It is fitting, if somewhat dramatic, that a study of taxation — that historic root of bitterness periodically springing up through the ages — should end in comtemplation of Him who spoke to an outcast and guilty tax-collector
(<421910>Luke 19:10) the wonderful words: “The Son of man came to seek and
to save that which was lost.”
Louis Matthews Sweet TEACH; TEACHER; TEACHING
<tech>, <tech’-er>, <tech’-ing>:
A rich variety of words is employed in the Bible to describe the teaching process. The terms do not so much indicate an office and an official as a function and a service, although both ideas are often expressed or implied.