Question XIV. Were the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begun from that division of the land?

[In] Leviticus ch. 25, “Sabbaths” not “of days” (which make up the single weeks), but “of years,” of a twofold kind, are prescribed. One is, that every seventh year be a Sabbath, and by it the land obtain, as it were, a quiet and cessation from all cultivation of the plough, of digging, of sowing, and of planting; and this is called the “Sabbatical year,” the “hebdomatic”; and by the Hebrews (from the remission and relaxation of those [dues] which were held by another) “Schemitah [Shemittah].” And of this [it is treated] in the cited Lev. ch. 25, from v. 2 to 8. The other is, that every year after seven times seven years — that is, [after] 49 years — be likewise a Sabbath. And this is wont to be called in Hebrew “Iubel [Jobel]”; in the 70, “ἀφέσεως σημασία [apheseōs sēmasia, ‘signification of release’]”; in Josephus (bk. 3, ch. 10), “ἰώβηλος [iōbēlos]”; by some “Iobelaeus” or “Iubelaeus”; by our Interpreter, and by very many not badly following him, “Iubilaeus [Jubilee]” — concerning which [see] the same place, from v. 8 to the end. About this, however, the first doubt is of the name.

Whether the seventh year itself of the seven annual weeks — that is, the 49th itself — is the Jubilee; or rather [the year] which follows it, the 50th? The opinion [is] threefold. The first: [that it is] the 49th. So Hugh Cardinalis (on Lev. ch. 25), Rodolphus Flaviacensis (bk. 18, ch. 13), from the Jews certain Rabbis, and in this time Mercator (Chronology, & ch. 1 of the Method), Junius and Tremellius on that same chapter, [and] Josephus Scaliger (bk. 5), where [he says] thus: “How greatly both the ancients and the more recent are deceived, who define the Jubilee by the space of 50 completed years, and not 49 — hence it can be observed.” And in the seventh book he teaches [that] the Jubilees are to be sought by dividing the ages by 40; and the same he repeats (bk. 3, Isag. p. 282 & following, & especially 289), in the Eusebian Animadversions also (pp. 15, 16, 25, 234, 259); and following him — and therefore soon much praised by him in the Prolegomena of the Isagoge — Sethus Calvisius (ch. 24 of the Chronological Isagoge). The second opinion: [that] it is the 50th itself. The third: Lyranus (on the same Lev. ch. 25) [holds] both opinions [to be] probable. But indeed the second, by the strength of more and better authors and reasons, [is] safer. For thus judged Eusebius (in the Chronicles), Cyril (bk. 17 On adoration), Bede (sermon 2 on the feast of Pentecost, & bk. 2 On the tabernacle, ch. 3), Clement VI (Pontiff), St. Ambrose (on Psalm 50), Cassiodorus (ibid.), Isidore (bk. 4 Etymol., ch. 8), St. Jerome (epist. 127 to Fabiola, mansion 12, & on ch. 5 of Amos), Abulensis (on Lev. 25, q. 6), Cajetan (ibid.), Oleaster (ibid.), Rutilius Benzonius (bk. 1 On the year of Jubilee, ch. 1), [and] other Christians who wrote about the Jubilee; and, from the Jews, clearly Josephus (in the cited place). For he says [that] the Lord commanded [that] a Sabbath and rest be given to the land itself, not only in the seventh year, but also “μετὰ ἓξ δ’ ὅμως ἐτῶν ἑβδομάδα [meta hex d’ homōs etōn hebdomada],” that is, “after the seventh week of years [post septimam annorum hebdomadem].” But indeed, “after this” — what is [it] but the fiftieth year? And this he subjoins most explicitly: “Ταῦτα πεντήκοντα μέν ἐστιν ἔτη τὰ πάντα [Tauta pentēkonta men estin etē ta panta],” that is, “these are, in all, fifty years [sunt anni omnes quinquaginta].” But when he wished to say, in the same place, [that] in the seventh year [there is] rest for the fields, he did not say “μετὰ ἕβδομον ἔτος [meta hebdomon etos],” that is, “after the seventh year [post septimum annum],” but “δι’ ἑβδόμου ἔτους [di’ hebdomou etous],” “in the seventh year [in anno septimo]”; just as, likewise, [that] men [are] to keep holiday from daily works, not “μετὰ ἑβδόμην ἡμέραν [meta hebdomēn hēmeran],” but “δι’ ἑβδόμης ἡμέρας [di’ hebdomēs hēmeras],” “on the seventh day [die septimo].” And lest any doubt should remain to anyone, he added moreover: “καλεῖται ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων ὁ πεντηκοστὸς ἐνιαυτὸς ἰώβηλος [kaleitai hypo Hebraiōn ho pentēkostos eniautos iōbēlos],” that is, “the fiftieth year is called by the Hebrews the Jubilee [Iobelus].” And indeed to this [view] some of the Rabbis too assent, as Lyranus acknowledges in the place indicated; [and] of the Innovators too, Hugh Broughton (in his Concentus, & on ch. 9 of Daniel), where he says [that] the year of the Lord’s passion fell in the 28th Jubilee, or in the year 1400 from the division of the land. Otherwise the current year of the 29th Jubilee must be called the 28th, as is manifest, if 1400 years be divided by 49. But let us take the sacred context itself into [our] hands. Lev. 25, v. 8, in Hebrew speaks thus: “And thou shalt number to thee seven sabba-[ths of years…]”

(col. 1123)

[seven sabba]ths (or “weeks”), “of years” (that is), seven years seven times; and there shall be to thee days of seven sabbaths (or weeks) of years — 49 years; and thou shalt cause the trumpet’s clangor to pass through in the seventh month, on the tenth [day] of the month, on the day of expiations (or of propitiation) you shall cause the trumpet’s clangor to pass through in all your land; and you shall sanctify that fiftieth year.” [Lev. 25:8–10, Latin] See how, after 49 years, the sanctification of the fiftieth year is prescribed. Indeed, if the 49th year were the Jubilee, why did he not say [that] it [rather] should be sanctified, than the fiftieth? Does he not say [that], in a week of days, the seventh day [is] to be celebrated, not the eighth? Does he not, in a week of years, likewise sanctify the seventh year, not the eighth? Since, therefore, here plainly the fiftieth itself, not the forty-ninth, is ascribed to rest, [those] are altogether in vain who think any other than the 50th year [to be] the Jubilee. So also afterward (v. 10): “And you shall sanctify that fiftieth year.” Some, in Abulensis (cited place), answer — and, with Tremellius, Junius, in the annotation, and likewise Calvisius (ch. 24 Isag., p. 80) — [that] “the fiftieth” is reckoned from the preceding Jubilee inclusively. But this is now to weave a gloss onto the text. And therefore, simply and nakedly, the text stands [with] the common opinion; and [that] this is not explained, but depraved, by that gloss, is proved in a twofold [way]. First: because the first Jubilee would not be — nor by Scripture be called or sanctified — “the fiftieth year”; for it would include no preceding Jubilee. Second: in the other, later Jubilees, one and the same year would have to be counted twice. For, so that the 49th year of the second Jubilee could be called the fiftieth, the last year of the first Jubilee would have to be counted once, and called the 49th year, and again counted, and called the first of the following Jubilee — so that the 49th of this [second Jubilee] could be called the fiftieth; and so in all the others. But who would bear the same unit to be repeated twice in some continuous number? And [who would bear] some number to be denominated so-and-so-great which is not so-and-so-great — [things] which Arithmetic forbids? Similar is the argumentation from the Thargum. But the Greek in the 70 text is much clearer still:

“Καὶ ἐναριθμήσεις σεαυτῷ ἑπτὰ ἀναπαύσεις ἐτῶν, ἑπτὰ ἔτη ἑπτάκις· καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδες ἐτῶν, ἐννέα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη. διαγγελεῖτε σάλπιγγος φωνῇ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν, ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ, τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνός, τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ διαγγελεῖτε σάλπιγγι ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἁγιάσετε τὸ ἔτος, τὸν πεντηκοστὸν ἐνιαυτόν [Kai enarithmēseis seautō hepta anapauseis etōn, hepta etē heptakis; kai esontai soi hepta hebdomades etōn, ennea kai tessarakonta etē. diaggeleite salpingos phōnē en pasē tē gē hymōn, en tō hebdomō, tē dekatē tou mēnos, tē hēmera tou hilasmou diaggeleite salpingi en pasē tē gē hymōn, kai hagiasete to etos, ton pentēkoston eniauton]” — “And thou shalt number to thyself seven rests of years, seven years seven times; and there shall be to thee seven weeks of years, forty-nine years. Ye shall proclaim with the sound of the trumpet in all your land, in the seventh [month], on the tenth of the month; on the day of atonement ye shall proclaim with the trumpet in all your land; and ye shall sanctify the year, the fiftieth year.” And afterward: “ἀφέσεως σημασία αὕτη· τὸ ἔτος τὸ πεντηκοστόν, ἐνιαυτὸς ἔσται ὑμῖν [apheseōs sēmasia hautē; to etos to pentēkoston, eniautos estai hymin]” — “this [is] the proclamation of release; the fiftieth year shall be a year for you.”

The Latin text, moreover, yields nothing to the foregoing in perspicuity, and always designates the fiftieth [year] (vv. 10 & 11). But another reason too occurs. For [God] seems, by a certain secret counsel of his, to have willed in the weeks of years [that] which [he willed] in the weeks of days. For he willed the seventh day to be [a day] of sacred cessation; he willed, from the Pasch, after seven weeks of days — or after 49 days — the fiftieth to be sacred (above, Lev. 23, vv. 15 & 16; and the witness today [is] Pentecost, concerning which [in] bk. 1, ch. 4, q. 12 & following). He willed, therefore, after seven weeks of years — or after 49 years — the fiftieth to be consecrated. Besides this: if the Jubilee and the Sabbatical were always the same, [there] would have been no need to prescribe, in that [50th], the [things] which had already been prescribed in this [49th] — namely, that in that year the land should be unploughed and uncultivated. But the Lord prescribes [it] (Lev. 25, vv. 11, 12). Indeed the Rabbis, in the treatise “De schemitah & Iobel,” do not repeat, in that [50th], the [things] which they explained in this [Sabbatical] — as is plain from the great book of precepts, in the “Helacoth Schemitah [Hilkhoth Shemittah],” p. 68, col. 2. Nor do I see what could be argued against these [points], except this one — [that] in this way two years of quiet and holiday would be connected in immediate succession. For in a Jubilee, say, first the 49th year would be Sabbatical, or [a year] of holiday, and immediately the following, the fiftieth. But sustenance would be difficult for so great a people, if it should call two whole continuous years away from ploughing, sowing, harvesting, and all cultivation of the soil. And so it will happen at every seventh Jubilee afterward. But with the years interposed between the Sabbatical and the Jubilee — at first only one year of labor and farming will lie between; then two, three, four, five, six. For in the second Jubilee, indeed, the same year which would be the first Jubilee[-year], or fiftieth, would already be the first of the eighth Sabbatical [cycle]. And therefore the 48th year of the second Jubilee would be the fourteenth Sabbatical. Therefore the 49th of the same Jubilee would be laborious [worked]. The following fiftieth [would be] again a holiday and Jubilee. But again the same Jubilee-year would be the third of the now-begun fifteenth Sabbatical [cycle]. Therefore the 47th year of the third Jubilee would be the 21st Sabbatical, and wholly idle [at rest]; but the two following years of the same Jubilee, 48 & 49, [would be] busy [worked]; but the fiftieth again idle. And so onward. But if we say not the 49th, but the 50th, [to be] the Jubilee, always [the year] which is the Jubilee will be Sabbatical — [in the years] 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 — and so perpetually.

For, in the Jubilee-cycle:

These are [the Sabbatical years]. But that difficulty of sustenance is removed by the same ease as in the Sabbatical year. For [he] who promised [that] he would take care of the provision of one holiday year (the Lord, Lev. 25, v. 20), the same can [do it] for two — and indeed wills [to]. And therefore, when Caietanus expounds the just-cited versicle, “understand,” he says, “the blessing proportionally for the year of Jubilee — because, in two continuous years, the land then rested.”

The other doubt, moreover, is: Whence is it called “Iubilaeus [Jubilee]”? Here [there are] many divisions of opinions, but [they flow] from about two headwaters. Of these, one is [that] of certain Latins — John of Anania, Peter Berchorius, [and] Stephen Notus — [deriving it] from the Latin “iubilare [to jubilate, to shout for joy].” But this too — and “iubilus” and “iubilum” — seems to some to flow from the other headwater (of which [we must] now speak), which is [that] of those who [derive it] from the Hebrew “Io-[bel]”

(col. 1125)

[Io]bel, [from which] they will have “Iubilaeus” derived. These [derivations], moreover, sent onto the fingers [counted up], are found [to be] ten:

I. They say “Iobel” means “trumpet [buccina]” or “tuba.” Because, therefore, on the day of propitiation the trumpet was sounded (Lev. 25, v. 9), so that this year should be celebrated, it was for that reason called “Iubilaeus.” But [that] that trumpet was “silver,” Abulensis (on that chapter, q. 7); “of horn,” others: [made] from the horns of larger animals, Ribera (on Hosea 5); nearly from a ram’s [horn], the Thargum (which mostly puts “dichra [ram]” for “Iobel”), and Rashi, Lyranus, Vatablus, Pagninus (in the Thesaurus), Augustinus Eugubinus (on the last ch. of Num.), Oleaster (on Lev. ch. 26), [and] Torquemada (on penitence, dist. §, “on Leviticus”).

II. Josephus (bk. 3, ch. 10): the name “Iobel” signifies “ἐλευθερία [eleutheria],” that is, “liberty” — because in that year liberty is given to slaves, and to sold fields and possessions. This pleases Theodoret (q. 35 on Lev.), Nazianzen (oration on holy Pentecost), [and] Rupert (bk. 2 on Lev. ch. 41, & on Ezek. 11). Whence Rutilius (bk. 1, ch. 4, On the Jubilee): “Thus,” he says, “the true derivation seems to me. For openly in the Leviticus text it is expressed by these words: ‘This year thou shalt call the fiftieth of remission to all the inhabitants of your land.’”

III. From “Iubal,” the inventor of Music (Gen. 4, v. 21): Masius (on Joshua ch. 6).

IV. Eusebius (in the Chronicles): “‘Iobel,’” he says, “among the Hebrews is called the fiftieth [quinquagenary] year.” And “in my judgment,” says Rutilius again, “this derivation is undoubtedly also very germane to the text of sacred scripture” (Num., last [ch.], & Lev. 25).

V. Hugh Cardinalis, & St. Bede (bk. On the tabernacle), think “Iobel” is “beginning [initium],” and [that] the year is called Jubilee because at its beginning the liberty and remission of various [persons] would begin.

VI. To St. Gregory, “Iobel” is rest and remission itself (bk. 1 on Tobit, ch. 6; homily 24 on the Gospels; bk. 2 on Ezekiel, homs. 17 & 19). A like, and almost germane, interpretation to that [one] which [was] placed in the second place, from Josephus.

VII. St. Bede (homily on Pentecost): “‘Iubilaeus,’” he says, “was ordered to be called ‘changed [mutatus],’ because slaves were changed from captivity into liberty, [and] because possessions, a change being made, returned to their former Lords.”

VIII. To Paul John Paulianus, “Iobel” is “great of God,” and therefore called Jubilee because it is the Great Year of God, worthier and more excellent than the rest.

IX. “Iobel” seems to Caietanus (on Lev.) to be called rather from the sprouting [germen] of the earth — since “iabal” is “to lead, to bring forth,” and “iebul” is the very fruit and germ of the earth (Exod. 31, v. 22; Lev. 26, v. 4; Judg. 6, v. 4; Ps. 66, v. 6; Ps. 77, v. 45; Ps. 84, v. 13; Ezek. 34, v. 27; Habakkuk 3, v. 16). Angelus Pientinus (bk. 3, On the Jubilee, ch. 4) [and] Bellarmine (bk. 1, On indulgences, ch. 1) assent.

X. The Concentus of Broughton: “The word ‘iubal,’” he says, “signifies ‘a casting-out, or the flowing of a stream.’ But ‘Iubilaeus’ cannot be derived from the Hebrew [word] which is ‘ram’s horn,’ but very fitly from ‘iubal’ — ‘flow,’ or ‘carrying and leading-down’ — because it carries us, as it were, with itself, and leads [us] down to CHRIST’s death.” Indeed “iubal” is “a stream” (Jer. 17, v. 8), which, by permutation of letters, some think the same as “ubal” (Dan. 8, vv. 2 & 3). So also “iebel” is a stream (Isa. 30, v. 25, & ch. 44, v. 4); likewise “iibla” from Lamentations 3, in Elias’s Methurgeman; and “iobela” (Job 3), “a leading-down, an outflow.” But I have indicated my opinion on these matters above (ch. 6, q. 5).

…and the [things] said there, could already have been enough — were it not not-unpleasant to see all these [things] about the Jubilee here, in a certain synopsis, as it were.

The third [is a] doubt: In what month were the Sabbatical and Jubilee year wont to begin? The opinion [is] twofold. The first [is that] of Abulensis (on Lev., q. 8): [that] it began in “Nisan,” which is for us about March. The second: [that] it began in the month “Tisri,” which is for us about September — and this [is] truer. First: because many more teach thus — of the more ancient, indeed, the Rabbis; of the more recent, [Paul of] Burgos (on Exod. ch. 12, first addition), Pererius (in Genesis, in the disputation on the time of the creation of the world), Rutilius (bk. 1, On the Jubilee, ch. 1), [and] Scaliger (in the places cited before). Second: because in every Sabbatical year the fruits of two years would perish, or, in the usual manner, would not be gathered and stored. For, since (as was shown above, ch. 3) the crops, grapes, and other fruits ripened earlier in Judaea — so much [so] that on the 16th [day] of Nisan itself a sheaf of ears was already offered to the Lord (Lev. ch. 23, v. 11) — and since again, in neither the Sabbatical nor the Jubilee year, was it permitted to reap, gather grapes, sow, prune, or do anything similar (Lev. 25, vv. 4, 11, 12): it is clearly perceived [that] in the 6th year either no sowing ought to be done, or, from it, no harvest would be forthcoming in the following 7th year; and since again, in that 7th year, no sowing is done, likewise in the eighth year there could be no harvest; and so the fruits of two whole years would be nothing — against the mind of Scripture (Lev. 25, vv. 21, 22). But when the year is begun in the month of September, both the harvest and the vintage of the 6th year are already gathered in; and therefore only that sowing is hindered which would have had to be reaped in the seventh year. But in the following September — when that 7th year is now finished — [the land] is sown again in the following 8th year, and the harvest is gathered. And the reckoning is equal in the 49th & 50th year: which [50th], while it would be immediately joined to the Sabbatical [49th], would have the provision of three whole years snatched away, in that manner which I just showed [regarding] the two [years].

The fourth [is a] doubt: In what year is that seventh month — in which was the Jubilee trumpet-clangor — to be taken (Lev. 25, v. 9)? The opinion [is] likewise twofold. For Abulensis (cited q. 8) believes [it] was in the year which ran before the Jubilee; but others [place it] in the Jubilee year itself — and this [is] more probable. But, from the [things] said in the foregoing doubt, that month, in the Jubilee year, is indeed “the Seventh” in respect of “Nisan” (whence sometimes the beginning of the year is drawn, as I taught on Genesis), but is the first in respect of the Jubilee itself; and it is the September of that year which would begin from the “Nisan” or “January” before the Jubilee’s “Nisan” or “January.” And so falls [collapses] that [objection] which Abulensis casts up — [that] the Jubilee-clangor [would be] too late, since six solid months of that year would have already passed. For the month, as I said, would be the first, and its day [would be] “the tenth day” — which most fittingly was chosen by God for this trumpet-Jubilee: so that, [on the day] on which the Jews seek from him the pardon of their debts, or of their sins, on that [day] they too should remit to their own brothers the true debts of another’s money, restore possessions, [and] bestow liberty; and [so that], whereas the other days [are days] of penitence, sadness, and mourning, in that year [that day] should be [a day] of thanksgiving, joy, and Jubilation. But [as to that] which Lyranus and Abulensis note — [that] great festivals were wont, among certain nations, to be pre-announced with joyful acclamations —

(col. 1127)

…as when, for example, they proclaim “Natale, natale [Christmas, Christmas],” “Pascha, pascha [Easter, Easter]” — indeed I myself experienced [this], as a boy, in the town of St-Romaric, where, after the first vespers of the Dominical Advent, the boys who go into the school pleasantly shout “Noel, Noel”; yet on the very day they shout and sing [it] much more pleasantly and frequently. And so here at Mainz, and everywhere else — although on the day before the celebrated feasts [there] is a great consonance of bells from the towers of the churches, yet [it is] much greater, more joyful, and more festive on the very day of those feasts.

Now finally the fifth [doubt], on account of which the other [doubts] were here raised, let it be a doubt: Whether the Sabbatical and Jubilee years began from the division of the land? Some indeed seem to begin them from the first foundation of the world — as Eusebius, who, in the 51st year of Abraham himself, set the beginning of the 41st Jubilee, and adds [that] this is done by him thus, “according to the Hebrews.” “And so,” he says, “according to their computation, from Adam to the present year there are 200 [years].” It can be added, from the Talmud (tractate Sanhedrin, ch. Helek), [that] which R. Jacob son of Solomon [Rashi] gathers and notes: [that] Elias Rabbi said to Judas the brother of R. Salla the Essene: “The world has not fewer than 85 Jubilees; but in the last Jubilee the son of David comes.” And afterward: “R. A[bba] too said to him: Before that Jubilee, do not expect him; from then on, await him.” These Hebrews seem to auspicate [begin] the Jubilees from the very foundation of things, because they speak of those [Jubilees] which the world has.

Yet it must be said, first, [that] the observation and counting of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years began from the divided land. First: because Scripture itself signifies this (cited Lev. ch. 25, v. 2): “When you shall have entered the land which I will give you, let the land sabbatize a Sabbath to the Lord.” This is the Sabbatical year. And of the Jubilee likewise is subjoined (v. 8): “Thou shalt also number to thee seven weeks of years.” But they entered that land perfectly when they began to possess, distribute, plough, sow, reap, cultivate, and inhabit it. Which happened in the seventh [year] after the first and imperfect entry into that same land, as the foregoing question taught. Second: the thing itself confirms it. In the Sabbatical, ploughing and the rest of the cultivation of the land ought to cease. Ploughing and cultivating by the Israelites, therefore, had already begun. In the Jubilee, besides, the sold houses, fields, vineyards, and estates all ought to return to the former Israelite Lords. All these [things], therefore, they ought first to have received, and held by true dominion. Third: those who wrote about the Jubilees after Eusebius confess this — Christians and Jews, who [were] nearly [all] named above.

It must be said, secondly, [that] both the Sabbatical and the Jubilee [years] are begun by the Rabbis after the second, or posterior, and Shiloh division of the land. For thus their “Seder Olam” (ch. 11) speaks: “The whole multitude of Israel was gathered in Shiloh; and then it was taken up [begun] to number the tithes, the years of remission, [and] the Jubilees.” On that account, for those same Rabbis, [it is] necessary [that] the Jubilees and Sabbaticals begin much after the 14th [year] of the coming into Canaan, and [after] the year of the Jordan crossing — but not [in] the 15th, as Genebrardus does (bk. 1 Chron., p. 35), because (as was said in the foregoing question) they refer the Gilgal, or prior, division of the land to the year of their coming into Canaan, the 14th [year] of the entry; and [they teach that] the Shiloh division was instituted some years afterward, [as] this book teaches below (ch. 18). But the Christian Chronologers fix the beginnings of those same years in about the eighth year after that entry — namely, immediately in the first year after the prior partition. And these carry my [own] point [vote], though a very slight and slender one. First indeed, because — the possessions being received from God — it was most equitable to begin so to use and enjoy them, that as soon as possible the will of God should be fulfilled, [his] honor increased, [and] worship of every kind begun. But he willed [that], after possession of the land had been reached, the Sabbaticals and Jubilees be begun (Lev. 25). He willed [that] the Israelites, who were pressed by want and servitude, be relieved as soon as possible with conveniences and liberty. He willed [that] the lots and boundaries [pomoeria] of the tribes remain, as soon as possible, divided and unmixed (Num., last chapter). He willed [that] the ceremonies, which he had before prescribed at Sinai, be observed religiously as soon as possible. Why, then, [was there need] of delay and procrastination — since many tribes had great domiciles and estates — for beginning the Sabbaticals and Jubilees? Why would the most solicitous leader Joshua, most loving of divine honor, linger in that business? Why would he not have objected sloth, ingratitude, [and] disobedience to the people for this very cause (below ch. 18), as, for other causes, he objects [it] (v. 3)? Second: the giving of firstfruits and tithes then began. For [that] the Levites — who ministered at God’s altar — should at once approach their own inheritance, was most consonant to reason; and their inheritance was the firstfruits and tithes (above, qq. 6 & 8). Therefore the reckoning of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years also began at the same time. For what cause [is there], why those [firstfruits and tithes] should begin, [and] these [Sabbaticals and Jubilees] not?