{"id":3580,"date":"2022-09-24T00:15:34","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:15:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-leviticus-271\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T00:15:34","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T05:15:34","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-leviticus-271","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-leviticus-271\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 27:1"},"content":{"rendered":"

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

1 8. The case of persons<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dues. The position which this chapter holds after the formal conclusion, Lev 26:46<\/span>, suggests that it is of a supplementary character. There seems, however, no reason to doubt its Mosaic origin.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CHAPTER XXVII <\/P>

Laws concerning<\/I> vows, 1, 2.<\/P>

Of males and females from twenty to sixty years of age, and<\/I><\/P>

their valuation<\/I>, 3, 4.<\/P>

Of the same from five to twenty years<\/I>, 5.<\/P>

Of the same from a<\/I> month to five years of age<\/I>, 6.<\/P>

Of males and females from sixty years old and upwards, and<\/I><\/P>

their valuation<\/I>, 7.<\/P>

The priest shall value the poor according to his ability<\/I>, 8.<\/P>

Concerning<\/I> beasts that are vowed, and their valuation<\/I>, 9-13.<\/P>

Concerning the sanctification of a<\/I> house, 14, 15.<\/P>

Concerning the field that is sanctified or consecrated to the<\/I><\/P>

Lord, to the year of jubilee<\/I>, 16-24.<\/P>

Every estimation shall be made in<\/I> shekels, according to the<\/I><\/P>

shekel of the sanctuary<\/I>, 25.<\/P>

The firstlings of clean beasts, being already the Lord’s,<\/I><\/P>

cannot be vowed<\/I>, 26.<\/P>

That of an unclean beast may be redeemed<\/I>, 27.<\/P>

Every thing<\/I> devoted to God shall be unalienable and<\/I><\/P>

unredeemable, and continue the Lord’s property till death<\/I>,<\/P>

28, 29.<\/P>

All the tithe of the land is the Lord’s<\/I>, 30;<\/P>

but it may be redeemed by adding a fifth part<\/I>, 31.<\/P>

The tithe of the<\/I> herd and the<\/I> flock is also his<\/I>, 32.<\/P>

The tenth that passes under the rod shall not be changed<\/I>, 33.<\/P>

The conclusion of the book<\/I>, 34. <\/P>

NOTES ON CHAP. XXVII<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And the Lord spake unto Moses<\/strong>,…. After he had delivered the body of laws in the preceding chapter, which by the close of the last seem to have been finished; but here some rules and instructions concerning vows are given, which a man was not obliged to make, but which he did of his own freewill and good pleasure: saying; as follows.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The directions concerning vows follow the express termination of the Sinaitic lawgiving (Lev 26:46<\/span>), as an appendix to it, because vows formed no integral part of the covenant laws, but were a freewill expression of piety common to almost all nations, and belonged to the modes of worship current in all religions, which were not demanded and might be omitted altogether, and which really lay outside the law, though it was necessary to bring them into harmony with the demands of the law upon Israel. Making a vow, therefore, or dedicating anything to the Lord by vowing, was not commanded, but was presupposed as a manifestation of reverence for God, sanctified by ancient tradition, and was simply regulated according to the principle laid down in Deu 23:22-24<\/span>, that it was not a sin to refrain from vowing, but that every vow, when once it had been made, was to be conscientiously and inviolably kept (cf. Pro 20:25<\/span>; Ecc 5:3-5<\/span>), and the neglect to keep it to be atoned for with a sin-offering (Lev 5:4<\/span>). – The objects of a vow might be persons (Lev 27:2-8<\/span>), cattle (Lev 27:9-13<\/span>), houses (Lev 27:14<\/span>, Lev 27:15<\/span>), and land (Lev 27:16-25<\/span>), all of which might be redeemed with the exception of sacrificial animals; but not the first-born (Lev 27:26<\/span>), nor persons and things dedicated to the Lord by the ban (Lev 27:28<\/span>, Lev 27:29<\/span>), nor tithes (Lev 27:30-33<\/span>), because all of these were to be handed over to the Lord according to the law, and therefore could not be redeemed. This followed from the very idea of the vow. For a vow was a promise made by any one to dedicate and given his own person, or a portion of his property, to the Lord for averting some danger and distress, or for bringing to his possession some desired earthly good. – Besides ordinary vowing or promising to give, there was also vowing away, or the vow of renunciation, as is evident from Num 30. The chapter before us treats only of ordinary vowing, and gives directions for redeeming the thing vowed, in which it is presupposed that everything vowed to the Lord would fall to His sanctuary as corban, an offering (Mar 7:11<\/span>); and therefore, that when it was redeemed, the money would also be paid to His sanctuary. – (On the vow, see my Archaeologie<\/em>, 96; Oehler<\/em> in Herzog’s Cycl<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Law Concerning Vows.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD>

B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1490.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      1 And the LORD<\/B> spake unto Moses, saying,   2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be<\/I> for the LORD<\/B> by thy estimation.   3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.   4 And if it be<\/I> a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.   5 And if it be<\/I> from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.   6 And if it be<\/I> from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be<\/I> three shekels of silver.   7 And if it be<\/I> from sixty years old and above; if it be<\/I> a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.   8 But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.   9 And if it be<\/I> a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD<\/B>, all that any man<\/I> giveth of such unto the LORD<\/B> shall be holy.   10 He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.   11 And if it be<\/I> any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the LORD<\/B>, then he shall present the beast before the priest:   12 And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou valuest it, who art<\/I> the priest, so shall it be.   13 But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part<\/I> thereof unto thy estimation.<\/P>

      This is part of the law concerning singular vows, extraordinary ones, which though God did not expressly insist on, yet, if they were consistent with and conformable to the general precepts, he would be well pleased with. Note, We should not only ask, What must we do, but, What may we do, for the glory and honour of God? As the liberal devises liberal things<\/I> (Isa. xxxii. 8<\/span>), so the pious devises pious things, and the enlarged heart would willingly do something extraordinary in the service of so good a Master as God is. When we receive or expect some singular mercy it is good to honour God with some singular vow.<\/P>

      I. The case is here put of persons vowed to God by a singular vow, v.<\/I><\/span> 2<\/span>. If a man consecrated himself, or a child, to the service of the tabernacle, to be employed there in some inferior office, as sweeping the floor, carrying out ashes, running of errands, or the like, the person<\/I> so consecrated shall be for the Lord,<\/I> that is, “God will graciously accept the good-will.” Thou didst well that it was in thy heart,<\/I> 2 Chron. vi. 8<\/I><\/span>. But forasmuch as he had no occasion to use their service about the tabernacle, a whole tribe being appropriated to the use of it, those that were thus vowed were to be redeemed, and the money paid for their redemption was employed for the repair of the sanctuary, or other uses of it, as appears by 2 Kings xii. 14<\/span>, where it is called, in the margin, the money of the souls of his estimation.<\/I> A book of rates is accordingly provided, by which the priests were to go in their estimation. Here is, 1. The rate of the middle-aged, between twenty and threescore, these were valued highest, because most serviceable; a male fifty shekels, and a female thirty, Lev 27:3<\/span>; Lev 27:4<\/span>. The females were then less esteemed, but not so in Christ; for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female,<\/I> Gal. iii. 28<\/I><\/span>. Note, Those that are in the prime of their time must look upon themselves as obliged to do more in the service of God and their generation than can be expected either from minors, that have not yet arrived to their usefulness, or from the aged, that have survived it. 2. The rate of the youth between five years old and twenty was less, because they were then less capable of doing service, v.<\/I><\/span> 5<\/span>. 3. Infants under five years old were capable of being vowed to God by their parents, even before they were born, as Samuel was, but not to be presented and redeemed till a month old, that, as one sabbath passed over them before they were circumcised, so one new moon might pass over them before they were estimated; and their valuation was but small, v.<\/I><\/span> 6<\/span>. Samuel, who was thus vowed to God, was not redeemed, because he was a Levite, and a particular favourite, and therefore was employed in his childhood in the service of the tabernacle. 4. The aged are valued less than youth, but more than children, v.<\/I><\/span> 7<\/span>. And the Hebrews observe that the rate of an aged woman is two parts of three to that of an aged man, so that in that age the female came nearest to the value of the male, which occasioned (as bishop Patrick quotes it here) this saying among them, That an old woman in a house is a treasure in a house.<\/I> Paul sets a great value upon the aged women, when he makes them teachers of good things,<\/I> Tit. ii. 3<\/I><\/span>. 5. The poor shall be valued according to their ability, v.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span>. Something they must pay, that they might learn not to be rash in vowing to God, for he hath no pleasure in fools,<\/I> Eccl. v. 4<\/I><\/span>. Yet not more than their ability, but secundum tenementum–according to their possessions,<\/I> that they might not ruin themselves and their families by their zeal. Note, God expects and requires from men according to what they have, and not according to what they have not, Luke xxi. 4<\/span>.<\/P>

      II. The case is put of beasts vowed to God, 1. If it was a clean beast, such as was offered in sacrifice, it must not be redeemed, nor any equivalent given for it: It shall be holy,<\/I>Lev 27:9<\/span>; Lev 27:10<\/span>. After it was vowed, it was not to be put to any common use, nor changed upon second thoughts; but it must be either offered upon the altar, or, if through any blemish it was not meet to be offered, he that vowed it should not take advantage of that, but the priests should have it for their own use (for they were God’s receivers), or it should be sold for the service of the sanctuary. This teaches caution in making vows and constancy in keeping them when they are made; for it is a snare to a man to devour that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry,<\/I> Prov. xx. 25<\/I><\/span>. And to this that rule of charity seems to allude (2 Cor. ix. 7<\/span>), Every man, according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give.<\/I> 2. If it was an unclean beast, it should go to the use of the priest at such a value; but he that vowed it, upon paying that value in money, and adding a fifth part more to it, might redeem it if he pleased, v.<\/I><\/span> 11-13<\/span>. It was fit that men should smart for their inconstancy. God has let us know his mind concerning his service, and he is not pleased if we do not know our own. God expects that those that deal with him should be at a point, and way what they will stand to.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

LEVITICUS- TWENTY-SEVEN<\/strong><\/p>\n

Verses 1-8:<\/p>\n

This Leviticus concerns the making of vows to God, regarding persons, verses 2-8; animals, verses 9-13; houses, verses 14, 15; and the lands, verses 16-24; and how these vows may be released.<\/p>\n

A man might vow to give to God anything or anyone over whom he had authority, or of himself. If one vowed a person to God’s service, that person could be redeemed at a certain price.<\/p>\n

“Singular vow,” a special vow, from pala, <\/strong>“to make wonderful, do wonderfully.”<\/p>\n

A vow was a voluntary promise to God, that one would do something pleasing to Him, or would fulfill some service, in return for a benefit he expected from God, see Ge 28:20-22; Nu 30; Jg 11:30. Or, it might be a vow to abstain from something, Nu 30:3. Vows were not considered a religious duty, but once made they were binding, De 23:21-23; Ec 5:4; Ps 66:13: Jg 11:35. To be binding, the vow must be spoken, De 23:23.<\/p>\n

When a man made a special vow, either of himself or of some other person, the priest declared the amount required to redeem this person and thus release him from it. This amount varied according to age and sex, and was computed by the temple shekel. This apparently not a coin, but a unit of weight, as coinage of money was not common at the time Moses’ Law was given. The temple shekel weighed approximately 35 ounces, somewhat lighter than the common shekel of about .4 ounces.<\/p>\n

1. A male, <\/strong>between twenty and sixty years of age. The redemption price was fifty shekels of silver. This was likely about 17.5 ounces, equivalent to a little over $260.00 in today’s reckoning.<\/p>\n

2. A female, <\/strong>of the same age. The redemption price was thirty shekels, likely about 10.5 ounces, or about $155.00.<\/p>\n

3. A male, <\/strong>between five and twenty years of age. The redemption price was twenty shekels, about seven ounces, or about $105.00<\/p>\n

4. A female, <\/strong>of the same age. The redemption price was ten shekels, about 3.5 ounces, or about $52.00.<\/p>\n

5. A male, <\/strong>of one month to five years of age. The redemption price was five shekels, about one and three-quarter ounces, or about $26.00.<\/p>\n

6. A female, of the same age. The redemption price was three shekels, a little over one ounce, or about $16.00.<\/p>\n

7. A male sixty years of age or older. The redemption price was fifteen shekels, about five and one quarter ounces, or about $79.00.<\/p>\n

8. A female <\/strong>sixty years of age or older. The redemption price was ten shekels, about 3.5 ounces, or about $52.00.<\/p>\n

(NOTE.- These figures are based upon a figure of $15.00 per ounce.)<\/p>\n

If the one who made the vow was too poor to pay the redemption price, the priest might use his own discretion to lower the terms to – enable him to pay.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. And the Lord spake unto Moses. In this chapter Moses shews in what manner and at what price what once has been offered is to be redeemed, supposing that the vows cannot be conveniently paid. Now it is to be observed, that among the ancient people there were two modes of consecration, the one by anathema, which the Hebrews call חרם, cherem, the other for the use of the temple, and other exercises of religion. The anathema (317) might be made of unclean animals, and other unholy things, as we may see in respect to the city of Jericho, and similar instances; but it was not properly allowable to make vows, except of a clean man or animal, or something else which might be appropriated in the service of God. Thus of their flocks they vowed goats and sheep; of their herds, oxen or calves, that they might experience God’s goodness in their fecundity. If a person was aggrieved at being without offspring, in asking it of God he offered in his vow his son, or daughter; on which ground Samuel, before he was conceived in the womb, was dedicated to God. (1Sa 1:22<\/span>.) If any one had a weakly child born to him, or if one of his children was very ill, or if he himself was in any difficulty, it was customary to have resort to vows, that God might protect what was dedicated to Him. Nor can it be doubted but that many abused this and fell into foolish practices; but God tolerated these errors as long as they were not opposed to His Law. Moreover, since it often happens that those who are under the obligation of a vow change their minds, and are not very eager and ready to pay it, nay, discharge it with much pain and unwillingness; God permitted that what was promised might be redeemed at a certain price, in order that their offerings might be voluntary. By the imposition of this ransom, which was of the nature of a fine, rashness was punished, and future inconsideration prevented, so that they might consider well what they were about before they made their vow, and that it might not be disagreeable to them to stand by their promises. Besides, it is to be remarked, that these vows were confirmed, not because they were altogether pleasing to God, but lest the people should accustom themselves to impious contempt of Him, if the deceiver might with impunity refuse God what he had promised, Moses first treats of persons; and estimates a male at fifty shekels of the sanctuary from twenty-five years of age to sixty; since this is the best time of life in which a man’s work is profitable. A woman he estimates at thirty shekels; since for the most part less profit is made by a woman than a man; and although it might occur that some women would be much more valuable than men, since sometimes women are found to be industrious, prudent, discreet, and strong to labor, whilst men are idle, dull, lazy, and weak, still a general law must needs be given, for the examination would have been too difficult if each individual was to be estimated according to their good qualities. God then does not pay exact attention to the merits of each, but is contented with the common calculation. He then lays down rules as to an earlier age, viz., from five to twenty, and rates the male at twenty shekels, the female at ten. He afterwards descends to infants, and appoints the price of a male from one month to five years, at five shekels, and a female at three. Fourthly, he estimates those who are more than sixty, the male at fifteen shekels, the female at ten; since old age debilitates the vigor both of mind and body, and gradually destroys it. In the fifth place, an exception is made lest the poor should be burdened beyond their slender means, that the priest should diminish the price as much as he saw fit. Still this diminution had reference also to the rich, if the person to be redeemed was not worth the ordinary price, though it appears that God here especially makes a provision for the poor from the words, “according (318) to what the hand of him that vowed shall attain;” by which clause Moses (319) is wont to express poverty, or want, because the poor and needy are not supplied with sufficient for their desires. <\/p>\n

(317) “ Qui vaut antant en Hebrieu, comme destruction, ou desolation;” which is equivalent in Hebrew to destruction, or desolation. — Fr. <\/p>\n

(318) “According to his ability that vowed.” — A. V. “According to that which the hand of him that vowed can attain.” — Ainsworth. <\/p>\n

(319) “ Car cela signifie disette, ou defant, d’autant que les povres n’ont pas en main ce qui seroit a souhaiter;” for this signifies want or deficiency, since the poor have not in hand what might be desired. — Fr. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Dotibe Offerings of the Lord<\/p>\n

SUGGESTIVE READINGS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev. 27:2<\/span><\/strong>.Shall make a singular vow<\/strong>. The Rabbins interpreted the phrase as meaning to pronounce a vow, and the Chaldee version renders the words, shall distinctly pronounce a vow. From this followed the subtle and misleading theory that no vow, unless pronounced audibly, was binding: ignoring the solemn truth that Our thoughts are heard in heaven; that there is not a word in our tongue but the Lord knoweth it altogether (Psa. 139:4<\/span>). Thus they made void the law by their traditions. Surely, if iniquity, which secretly is regarded in our hearts (Psa. 66:18<\/span>), offends God, so that He will not hear our prayers, the formation of a solemn resolve in the privacy of thought is regarded by Him as equal to an uttered vow. He values a purpose when it is as yet only in thy heart (1Ki. 8:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Lev. 27:1-13<\/span><\/strong>.The persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation<\/strong>. Gratitude impels to dedication; and it led individual Israelites to dedicate themselves or their children to Gods service in His house for life. Hannah thus devoted Samuel. But while this was right, and it is well for the zeal and love of the soul to find outlet in such acts of surrender, vows made rashly are harmful in themselves and displeasing to God, whereas hesitancy in fulfilling right vows, will equally wound our own conscience and dishonour the Lord (Ecc. 5:2-5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Lev. 27:14-25<\/span><\/strong>.Sanctify his house to be holy to the Lord<\/strong>. Just as persons (Lev. 27:2<\/span>) might be devoted to Jehovah, so might possessionshouses, lands, cattle, and all worldly substance. Yet God, while valuing the piety which led to such consecration, gently arrested excess of zeal which might carry persons beyond prudence in their act of dedication. In Lev. 27:16<\/span> the words some part of a field hold the suggestion, which afterwards became a recognized regulation in Israel, that no man should vow the whole of his estates to sacred purposes, since that would reduce him and his family to penury. God values a zeal ruled by prudence. In this Christian age of spiritual obligations it rises into a privilege to be permitted to use<\/em> all we possess for the glory of our Lord and His kingdom rather than to consign it by vows to any ecclesiastical order or priestly control. Each is a steward, and must spend and be spent for his Lord: the right fulfilment of our stewardship may not be entrusted to another. [See Rom. 16:6-8<\/span>]. Every man must bear his own burden, and give account of himself to God, for all are now priests unto God (Rev. 1:6<\/span>), each having his ministry to fulfil and his sacrifies to present (1Pe. 2:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Lev. 27:26-27<\/span><\/strong>.The Lords firstling: no man should sanctify it<\/strong>. Those firstlings belonged to Jehovah already; were His property by express enactment (Exo. 13:2<\/span>), and therefore were not free for the possessor to dedicate. A vow implies something beyond defined duty. God has made some sacred demands upon His people so emphatic as to necessitate implicit obedience; but beyond these absolute duties there is a realm of liberty in which each may obey the incitements of gratitude and the spontaneity of love.<\/p>\n

Lev. 27:28-29<\/span><\/strong>Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord<\/strong>. It was allowed to the Israelite to transfer to God complete and Irrevocable possession of his living treasures as children or servants, and also his material substance, cattle and estates. Once so devoted, it could never be redeemed. So Hannah devoted Samuel, and Jephtha his daughter. And we, who have surrendered ourselves to Christ, and devoted our children in baptismal covenant to the faith, may not draw back under penalty of death. The Lords possessions may not be recalled from their sacred purpose and aim. Therefore glorify God in body and spirit, which are His.<\/p>\n

Lev. 27:30-34<\/span><\/strong>.The tithe of the land<\/strong>. [See History of Tithes<\/em>, homily on this section of chapter].<\/p>\n

SECTIONAL HOMILIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> LAWS CONCERNING VOWS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Reasonable to suppose that pious Hebrews, anxious to obey the laws of the Lord, would resolve upon devoting themselves and their substance to His service. Some of them might make vows under sudden excitement or ecstatic feeling, which, upon calm reflection, they would devoutly wish commuted or remitted. Moses, and his successors, would need to know how to deal with such cases, with equity to worshippers, and the approval of Jehovah. Hence, necessity and blessing of such directions contained in this appendix to the book of Leviticus, which teach,<\/p>\n

I. THAT VOLUNTARY AND SPECIAL VOWS WERE PERMITTED BY THE LORD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The people were commanded<\/em>, but never compelled to obey. In the strictest injunctions respecting ritual, a margin was left for voluntary service, free will offerings. Special vows were optional. If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin to thee (Deu. 23:22<\/span>). Circumstances would be frequently occurring to prompt the formation and utterance of special dedication of persons or property to the Lord, e.g<\/em>., special blessing, signal deliverances, etc. Gratitude would suggest and duty demand exceptional service. Enthusiastic love, always inventive and ready to lavish, is ready to offer what unsympathetic spectators rashly denominate waste<\/em> (Mar. 14:4<\/span>). Jehovah accepts unaccomplished purposes, if unavoidable circumstances or personal inability prevent their fulfilment. Vows should be made cautiously, deliberately<\/em>, and in most instances, conditionally<\/em>; because further enlightenment, or changed conditions may render their fulfilment undesirable, unnecessary<\/em>, or even impossible<\/em>.<\/p>\n

II. THAT VOWS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE LORD ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT WHICH PROMPTED THEM, AND IN WHICH THEY WERE PAID<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

When circumstances justified an Israelite repenting of his vow, it could be commutated or remitted, or some compensation offered in its stead. Jehovah would accept nothing that was recklessly or reluctantly presented. All adjustments and decisions were to be made according to the standards of the sanctuary, not according to human fallibility and caprice. Though a vow should not be literally<\/em> performed, it must be perfectly<\/em> fulfilled in respect to honourable intention, and sacred fidelity. The state of heart, in the presentation of sacrifice, determined the value of the gift. This law has never been repealed. Through the vail of the Levitical economy beam the rays of the Gospel, which do not destroy the law, but fulfil it.<\/p>\n

III. THAT FREEDOM OF CHOICE GIVEN IN THE FULFILMENT OF VOWS DID NOT CONTRAVENE THE PURPOSES OF THE LORD CONCERNING HIS WORK AND WORSHIP<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The compensation paid in lieu of the original vow went to sustain the sanctuary services, and the Lord reserved to Himself some unalienable rights. Some things when devoted could not be withheld or withdrawn under any circumstances He demanded a tenth of the produce of the land, and enforced His claim with righteous and unrelaxing rigour. Thus the preservation and perpetuation of Jehovahs worship were secured, and not left contingent upon the fickleness and uncertainty of human devotedness. Righteousness lies at the foundation of the Levitical economy; is the basis of natural and revealed religion.
Though in the gospel, Moses and Elias withdrew, and we see Jesus only; though under the new dispensation the yoke of service is easy, the burden of sacrifice light; yet obedience is the divine test of love, and Christly works are the essential proofs of saving faith. Leviticus is a witness to Christ and His gospel. In Him we have combined all that the law embodied,Altar, Sacrifice, Priest<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Simplicity, and purity of aims, loftiest motives, deepest meanings, and incomparable excellence, lift the law and the gospel infinitely above all other religions of the world. The superiority to Jewish narrowness and bigotry, to human sinfulness and shortsightedness, demonstrate their divinity of origin, mutual dependence, absolute authority, undying vigour, and inestimable worth.F. W. B<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> COMPARATIVE ABILITY (<\/strong>Lev. 27:1-8<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. It is distinctly stated that no obligation enforces individuals to make a vow<\/em> to the Lord (Deu. 23:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. But the stringency of fulfilling a vow when once made<\/em> is emphatically laid down (Deu. 23:21<\/span>; Ecc. 5:4-5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. The practice of making vows largely prevailed<\/em> during the Mosaic dispensation (1Ch. 29:9<\/span>; Jdg. 11:30<\/span>; Num. 30:2<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n

4. Voluntary vows<\/em> had recognition or place in the Christian Economy<\/em> (Act. 18:18<\/span>, etc.). Yet in the act of devoting ourselves or our possessions, it must be considered that<\/p>\n

I. ABILITY IS NO STANDARD FOR OUR PERSONAL ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It was obviously a question of capacity or resources, when a man was making his vow, what that vow<\/em> should be; but ability or resources had no place in Gods acceptance of the individual himself. The rule of personal acceptance appears in Exo. 30:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1. Atonement and acceptance stand on the common basis of guilt<\/em>. And there is no difference between rich and poor in this.<\/p>\n

2. Redemption requires an equal price for every human soul<\/em>. Christs full merits are needed for and by each one.<\/p>\n

3. No votive offering is accepted unless and until the atonement price has been paid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Then we may come with our vows. But Christs preciousness<\/em> must proceed. Personal merits or possessions have no regard with God until Christ has atoned for our souls. Into the relationship of acceptance with<\/em> God we can only enterand we have boldness to enterby the blood of Jesus.<\/p>\n

II. ABILITY WILL BE ESTIMATED AS REGULATING OUR OFFERINGS TO GOD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

When atonement is made for our souls, and which are accepted on that ground, then we may bring our offerings.<\/p>\n

1. The diferences which separate us<\/em> are reckoned in the estimation of our gifts. It is thus: According to that a man hath.<\/p>\n

2. The righteousness of God requires that we offer according to what He has bestowed on us<\/em>. If riches, then a large gift, etc.<\/p>\n

3. Our own judgment is not sufficient to decide our obligation<\/em>. The shekel of the sanctuary is to weigh every offering. All this disposes of fitfulness and caprice in the performances of religion; God looks to our bringing our utmost<\/em>; and He weighs what we bring<\/em>.<\/p>\n

III. ABILITY, WHEN BELOW THE MEASURE OF OBLIGATION, IS DETERMINED BY THE PRIEST OF GOD<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

There was a rigid rule by which the votive offerings were estimated: but to this standard some were too poor<\/em> to attain (Lev. 27:8<\/span>). It be be poorer than thy estimation then shall he present himself to the priest<\/em>. Note: he turns from Moses<\/em> to the priest:<\/em> from the embodiment of righteous exaction<\/em> to the representative of gracious mediation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. A sense of insufficiency for righteous requirements<\/em> is here provided for. We have a High Priest over the house of God.<\/p>\n

From the righteousness of the law we may turn to the spaciousness of the Priest.<\/p>\n

2. Our poverty only serves to unfold the resources of divine compassion and grace<\/em>. God does not burden the weak; He meets our penury with gentleness. His grace is magnified by our inability to rise to the standard of righteousness.<\/p>\n

3. Yet every sinner is certainly found by the lawgiver poorer than his estimation<\/em>. What then? Where sin abounded grace doth much more abound. It is of grace that it might not be of works. To the poor<\/em> the gospel is preached.<\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> REDEMPTION OF VOTIVE OFFERINGS (<\/strong>Lev. 27:14-34<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

(a<\/em>) Vows were sometimes made erroneously<\/em> and with faulty motives; for it is human to err. In Gods pity, arrangements were sanctioned for releasing devotees from these solemn obligations and bonds.<\/p>\n

(b<\/em>) By the imposition of a ransom price, which was in the nature of a fine, rashness<\/em> was punished, and thus checked.<\/p>\n

(c<\/em>) This insistance upon an equivalent<\/em> for the withdrawal of votive offerings, enforced the fact that inconsiderate action or impetuosity could not be neutralised by the mere feeling of regret for what had been done: God exacted His dues, and bound them to a reverence for His righteous claims.<\/p>\n

I. SPONTANEITY IN RELIGIOUS OFFERINGS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Into every career come such manifest mercies or gracious deliverances as to constrain the thought, What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits towards me?<\/p>\n

1. A grateful recognition of God in our life<\/em> impels to acts of devotion: The glad heart would bring an offering.<\/p>\n

2. The outgoing of our gratitude<\/em> is arrested by no strict imposts or demands. The offering may be a person<\/em> or his possessions<\/em>. God allows freedom where He can.<\/p>\n

3. Exceptional causes for gratitude<\/em> should find outlet in exceptional consecration. This singular vow was something in excess<\/em> of the usual religious gifts and services; it was something besides the continual burnt offering.<\/p>\n

Ask (a<\/em>) Is there one<\/em> of Gods children to whom God, in providence or grace, has not extended exceptional proofs of loving kindness<\/em> or deliverance? What hath God wrought! What abounding grace has He shown!<\/p>\n

(b<\/em>) Is there one<\/em> of Gods children from whom God has received no return of dedication<\/em> or devotion for His wondrous goodness and love? Have our hearts been sepulchres in which to bury the records of His love?<\/p>\n

(c<\/em>) Is there one<\/em> of Gods children in whom awakes a sense of how mucoh he owes his Lord, ready now<\/em> to lay self, heart, powers on the consecrating altar? I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presene of all His people. God values a willing offering, and waits to receive what we earnestly bring.<\/p>\n

II. ENFORCEMENT OF ESPOUSED OBLIGATIONS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

It is our melancholy tendency to lapse from vows made in times of mercy.<\/p>\n

1. God holds us to our vows<\/em>. In some covenants and consecrations He allows no recall (Lev. 27:28-29<\/span>); while in every instance some substitution or commutation is required. This is an enforcement of the law of fidelity<\/em>. Between God and man there must be the fulfilment of rights. Never does He<\/em> violate an obligation to which He has pledged Himself. He fulfils all<\/em> that He covenants to regardprecious promises, supplies of grace, riches, provisions of mercy, plenteous redemption. There is no withdrawal from His word<\/em>, on that which He has caused us to hope: faithfulness is the girdle of His loins.<\/p>\n

Neither may there be fickleness in our obligations to Him<\/em>. Jacob might forget Bethel amid his successes in Padan-aran; but God did not: Arise, go up to Bethel, and make there an altar unto God that appeared unto thee, etc. (Gen. 35:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. God concedes to our weaknesses<\/em>. He is very pitiful and of tender mercy, not a hard task-master. While maintaining the law of righteousness, and requiring our fidelity, He yet provides for our short-sightedness and variability. Vows made in an earnest moment might prove most burdensome and inexpedient to fulfil. We see only the moment; fuller reflexion may show us that the pledge we made was not wise, or that it would overtax us. Therefore, God allows commutation. Vows were redeemable on terms here defined.<\/p>\n

a<\/em>. A gracious principle of considerateness<\/em> and concession<\/em> runs through all Gods requirements of us. He looks for the spirit<\/em> of fidelity, the wish to act aright<\/em>; and then He relaxes the literal bond. For He sees our frailty. Know then that the Lord exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity requireth (Job. 11:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b<\/em>. The gentle law of substitution<\/em> is here unveiled. God accepts something else<\/em>, something less<\/em>, in the place of that we owe Him. We owe Him perfect obedience. He accepts the wish and effort<\/em> to obey. We owe Him all we are and have: He accepts a portion<\/em> of our time, substance, and energies. We owe Him our complete ruin, for the soul that sinneth shall die; but He says, Let the wicked forsake<\/em> his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return<\/em>, etc., and He will accept this, and stay the doom.<\/p>\n

In the Person and Sacrifice of Christ, substitution reaches its climax<\/em>. But it was not something less<\/em> when He stood for the human race: it was infinitely more!<\/em> A perfect Son<\/em> for rebellious children; a spotless Sacrifice<\/em> for a sinful world. Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift. See Addenda, Vows<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> THE HISTORY OF TITHES (<\/strong>Lev. 27:30-33<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS concerning the <\/strong>law<\/em><\/strong> of tithes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1. Antecedent to the Mosaic legislation<\/em>. The principle of dedicating a tenth to God was recognised in the act of Abraham<\/em>, who paid tithes of his spoils to Melchizedek in his sacerdotal rather than his sovereign capacity (Gen. 14:20<\/span>; Heb. 7:6<\/span>). Later, in Jacobs<\/em> vow (Gen. 28:22<\/span>), the dedication of a tenth presupposes a sacred enactment, or a custom in existence which fixed that proportion rather than any other proportion, such as a seventh, or twelfth.<\/p>\n

2. The Mosaic statutes<\/em>. These given in this section lay claim in Gods name to the tenth of produce and cattle. An after enactment fixed that these tithes were to be paid to the Levites for their services (Num. 18:21-24<\/span>), who were to give a tithe of what they received to the priests (Lev. 27:26-28<\/span>). The sacred festivals were later made occasion for a further tithe (Deu. 12:5-6<\/span>; Deu. 12:11<\/span>; Deu. 12:17<\/span>; Deu. 14:22-23<\/span>); which was allowed to come in money-value rather than in kind (Deu. 14:24-26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. Hezekiahs reformation<\/em>. This was signalized by the eagerness with which the people came with their tithes (2Ch. 31:5-6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4. After the Captivity<\/em>. Nehemiah made marked and emphatic arrangements concerning the tithing (Neh. 10:37<\/span>; Neh. 12:44<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5. Prophets teachings<\/em>. Both Amos (Lev. 4:4<\/span>) and Malachi (Lev. 3:10<\/span>) enforce this as a duty, by severely rebuking the nation for its neglectas robbing God.<\/p>\n

6. In Christs day<\/em>. Our Lord exposed and denounced the ostentatious punctiliousness of the Pharisees over their tithing (Mat. 23:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7. Teaching of the New Testament<\/em>. The fact of the existence of ministers as a distinct class, assumes provision made for their maintenance. The necessity for such provision, and the right on which it is founded, are recognized in such texts as Mat. 10:10<\/span>; Luk. 10:7<\/span>; Rom. 15:27<\/span>; 1Co. 9:7-14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

II. THE ECCLESIASTICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE <\/strong>demand<\/em><\/strong> FOR TITHES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1. The Fathers<\/em> urged the obligation of tithing on the earliest Christians. The Apostolical Canons, the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Cyprian on The Unity of the Church<\/em>, and the writings of Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and other Fathers of both divisions of the early Church, abound with allusions to this as a duty; and the response was made, not in enforced tithing, but by voluntary offerings<\/em>.<\/p>\n

2. The legislation of the first Christian Emperors<\/em> recognised the obligation of maintaining the ministers of Christ. But while they assigned lands and other property to their support, they enacted no general payment of the tenth of the produce of the lands.<\/p>\n

3. Ancient Church councils<\/em> favoured tithings of land and produce, e.g<\/em>., the Councils of Tours, A.D. 567; the second Council of Macon, A.D. 585; the Council of Rouen, A.D. 650; of Nantes, A.D. 660; of Metz, 756.<\/p>\n

4. Its first imperial enactment<\/em>. Charlemagne (king of the Franks, A.D. 768814; and Roman Emperor, A.D. 800814) originated the enactment of tithes as a public law, and by his capitularies formally established the practice over the Roman Empire which his rule swayed. From this start it extended itself over Western Christiandom; and it became general for a tenth to be paid to the Church.<\/p>\n

5. Introduction of tithes into England<\/em>. Offa, king of Mercia, is credited with its assertion here, at the close of the eighth century. It spread over other divisions of Saxon England, until Ethelwulf made it a law for the whole English realm. It remained optional with those who were compelled to pay tithes to determine to what Church they should be devoted; until Innocent III. addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, A.D. 1200, a decretal requiring tithes to be paid to the clergy of the parish to which payees belonged. About this time also, tithes, which had originally been confined to those called prdial, or the fruits of the earth, was extended to every species of profit and to the wages of every kind of labour.<\/p>\n

6. The great<\/em> and small<\/em> tithe. The great<\/em> tithe was made upon the main products of the soil, corn, hay, wood, etc.; the small<\/em> on the less important growths. To the rector<\/em> the great tithes of a parish are assigned, and to the vicar<\/em> the small.<\/p>\n

7. Tithes paid in kind<\/em> These claim the tenth portion of the product itself (Lev. 27:30-33<\/span>). This is varied by a payment of an annual valuation; or an average taken over seven years; or by a composition, which, in a bulk sum, redeems the land from all future impost, rendering it henceforth tithe free.<\/p>\n

III. THE ARGUMENTS FOR REJECTING THE MODERN <\/strong>impost<\/em><\/strong> OF TITHES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1. The rule of Equity<\/em> is infringed. When every man belonged to the one Church of the realm, all inhabitants might, with some show of rectitude, be called to support it. In Ireland the larger part of the nation was antagonistic to the Church, for which tithes were, through many generations, levied, and the impost was resented as an affront and injustice. In England a half of the population dissents from the Established Church, and both rears and maintains its own sanctuaries, and also sustains Noncomformist worship; on these adherents of English Free Churches the tithe is an oppression made in unrighteousness. In Wales, where the tithe-sustained Church has a vastly smaller proportional attachment, the enforcement of the law is even a greater breach of equity. The only law of equity<\/em> in such ecclesiastical questions isthey who use a Church should pay for its support.<\/p>\n

2. The genius and teaching of Christianity<\/em> is violated. Christianity enforces no demand by law<\/em>, it makes appeal to love<\/em>. It asks willinghood. It states this principle: That as there was a readiness to will<\/em>, so there may be a performance<\/em> (2Co. 8:11<\/span>). And it limits the acceptableness<\/em> of what is offered by this law: If there be first a willing mind<\/em>, it is accepted according to that a man hath, etc. (2Co. 8:12<\/span>). If exaction and impost were to cease, there would be good hope that all sections of Christs Church in our land would conbine to maintain the historic sanctuaries of Episcopalianism, and prove that charity and willinghood have yet a deep root in the Christian heart of England.<\/p>\n

3. The sacred persuasives<\/em> to generosity in Church maintenance are:<\/p>\n

(a<\/em>) That as the gospel is superior to the law, and Christ to Moses, so should Christian generosity surpass Jewish<\/em>.<\/p>\n

(b<\/em>) That as to Jews Zion was dear, and for her they lavished vast wealth, so should Christians bring, with yet grander bouutifulness<\/em>, of their substance to the cause<\/em> and Church<\/em> of their blessed Lord.<\/p>\n

(c<\/em>) That it is beyond question a New Testament obligation on all believers<\/em> to support the ministry and maintain the ordinances of the gospel (1Co. 9:13-14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(d<\/em>) That while the Gospel supplies motives to love and consecration and sacrifice<\/em>, it leaves Christians to apply these to themselves, and work out sacred principles in beautiful performances.<\/p>\n

Note.The Jew<\/em> devoted nearly one-third of his income to religious purposes, by the command of the law; a tenth for the Levites, in property<\/em> (Num. 18:20<\/span>, etc.); another tenth for the Sanctuary, chiefly in cattle and grain<\/em> (Deu. 14:22<\/span>, etc.); and every third year a tenth to the poor.<\/p>\n

Christian:<\/em> How much owest thou<\/em> unto my Lord? Take thy bill and write down quickly.<\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> EPILOGUE.THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Leviticus, like the Tabernacle, may present to the cursory observer, a rough and uninviting exterior; but within are found priceless blessings for those who devoutly draw near, and reverently worship. The Law may seem<\/em> cumbrously elaborate, needlessly exacting; but sanctified intelligence and patient investigation will discover mercy in its purposes, and evangelical doctrines in its statutes. The letter may sometimes kill, but the spirit invariably gives life. In their sublime ends, the old and the new dispensations are indissolubly linked together, thus suggesting<\/p>\n

I. THE POINTS UPON WHICH THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL ESSENTIALLY AGREE<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1. Both proclaim the spotless holiness and inflexible justice of Jehovah<\/em>. The law allows no connivance at, or compromise with sin; so the gospel shows no weakness or flaw in the inflexibility of justice, for Christ fulfilled the law and satisfied the utmost claims of Divine justice. Perfect holiness is exhibited in His blameless life, enforced in His immaculate example.<\/p>\n

2. Both proclaim the extent and heinousness of sin<\/em>. For all sins, even those of ignorance, sacrifices were provided. The high priest, with the whole nation, needed forgiveness. Many and costly oblations taught how universal, inveterate and deep-dyed is sin. The Cross teaches that the sins of the world can only be washed away by the precious blood of Christ.<\/p>\n

3. Both proclaimed the necessity of mediation and vicarious sacrifice in order to reconciliation to God<\/em>. Priests introduced men to God, interceded for them. The sacrifices offered were in the offerers stead. The gospel reveals one Mediator between God and man, one offering of the sins of the whole world.<\/p>\n

4. Both proclaimed the necessity of faith and obedience in order to salvation<\/em>. The offerer of Jewish sacrifices identified himself with the victim, and appropriated the promised blessing. Sanctification and consecration were to accompany the application for forgiveness. Sacrifices were only efficacious when associated with holiness, the adoption of a new life. So, in the gospel believers are saved from<\/em>, not in<\/em><\/strong>, their sins. Without holiness no man can see the Lord. All who bear the name of Christ and believe on Him must depart from iniquity.<\/p>\n

II. THE POINTS UPON WHICH THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL PROGRESSIVELY DIFFER<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1. The Law enforced authoritative commands; the Gospel exhibits gracious constraints<\/em>. The former appealed to fear, the latter appeals to love. Thunders peal from Sinai, music rings from Calvary.<\/p>\n

2. The Law seemed to limit its legislation to time; the Gospel discloses immortality, and points to eternity<\/em>. The Israelites met with retribution at the hands of Moses, wrong-doers are now reminded of the final account, the judgment seat of Christ.<\/p>\n

3. The Law revealed God as mans Sovereign King; the Gospel reveals Him as mans loving Father<\/em>. Revelations at Sinia were august, awe-inspiring:<\/em> made God known as Sovereign and Governor. Christ revealed the Fatherhood of God; that man, though fallen and profligate, is His child; that for him there are many mansions and unfading joys.<\/p>\n

4. The Law took main cognizance of overt acts; the Gospel has primary respect to motives and intentions of the heart<\/em>. Thus, the morality of the New Testament is exceedingly pure<\/em> and absolutely perfect<\/em>; a transcript of the holiness of the Divine nature.<\/p>\n

5. The Law was to be supplanted by some better thing; the Gospel is final, conclusive, and complete<\/em>. We look back to the law and see the foregleaming of the gospel; we look forward through Apocalyptic visions to the glorious consummation, when the redeemed universe will echo with the song of Moses and the Lamb, Hallelujah! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.F.W.B.<\/em><\/p>\n

Topic:<\/em><\/strong> COMMANDMENTS WHICH THE LORD COMMANDED MOSES (<\/strong>Lev. 27:34<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Divine regulations and requirements of Leviticus are to be classified as<\/p>\n

1. Ceremonial:<\/em> and consequently special to the Jewish nation; not binding upon or applicable to this Christian age.<\/p>\n

2. Moral:<\/em> for precepts and teachings intermingle with the ceremonies, whose relevancy and urgency are not to be restricted to any nation or period; there are Divine directions for us as for Israel.<\/p>\n

3. Spiritual:<\/em> A foreshadowing of gospel doctrines and of the better covenant of grace, and of the privileges of the Christian life, runs through the Levitical institutes. In these types and premonitions Christ and His work are prefigured; and, therefore, we read our inheritance in these Jewish signs.<\/p>\n

I. SACRIFICE AND INCENSE<\/strong>. These have found their verification in the substitutionary death of Jesus.<\/p>\n

II. TABERNACLE SANCTITIES AND SOLEMNITIES<\/strong>. These have become glorified in the incarnation of Christ which they predicted, and the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer which they pourtrayed.<\/p>\n

III. CAMP DUTIES AND PURIFYINGS<\/strong>. These find their sacred realization in those obligations, responsibilities, and services, which now distinguish believers who form the community of Christs living Church.<\/p>\n

IV. HOLY FEASTS AND CONVOCATIONS<\/strong>. These proclaim the spiritual fulness and delights with which the redeemed in Christ are now enriched; and those times of refreshing with which the Spirit gladdens humble hearts in which Emmanuel dwells.<\/p>\n

V. ALTAR OFFERINGS AND VOWS<\/strong>. These mark that consecration of life and love which all who know the Lord should yield to Him, and which both distinguish the Christian character and dignify the Christian name.<\/p>\n

Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever, Amen.<\/p>\n

ILLUSTRATIVE ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 27<\/strong><\/p>\n

VOWS UNPAID<\/strong><\/p>\n

Praise should always follow answered prayer. It was thus with one man; he was very ill; a great, strong man in his day; yet disease shrivelled him up, laid him upon a lowly bed, made him pray to the humblest creature in his house for favours hour by hour. As he lay there, in his lowliness and weakness, he said, If God would raise me up I would be a new man, I would be a devout worshipper in the sanctuary. I would live to His glory. And God gathered him up again; didnt break the bruised reed; did not quench the smoking flax, but permitted the man to regain his faculties. And he was not well one month till he became as worldly as he was before his affliction. He prayed as if his heart loved God; and when he got his health back again he was a practical atheist, he was virtually the basest of blasphemers.<\/p>\n

Joseph Parker, D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Call to thy God for grace to keep
Thy vows; and if thou break them weep;<\/p>\n

Weep for thy broken vows, and vow again;
Vows made with tears cannot be made in vain.<\/p>\n

Then once again<\/p>\n

I vow to mend my ways;<\/p>\n

Lord, say Amen,<\/p>\n

And Thine be all the praise.<\/p>\n

G. Herbert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It is the purpose that makes strong the vow;
But vows to every purpose must not hold.<\/p>\n

Shakespeare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Unheedful vows may heedfully be broken.<\/p>\n

Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n

TITHENS<\/strong><\/p>\n

I know of two men who started business with this view: We will give to God one-tenth of our profits. The first year the profits were considerable; the tithe was consequently considerable. The next year there was increase in the profits, and, of course, increase in the tithe. In a few years the profits became very, very large indeed, so that the partners said one to another: Is not a tenth of this rather too much to give away? Suppose we say now we will give a twentieth? And they gave a twentieth; and the next year the profits had fallen down; the year after they fell down again, and the men said to one another as Christians should say in such a case, Have not we broken our vow? Have we not robbed God? And in no spirit of selfish calculation, but with humility of soul, self-reproach and bitter contrition they went back to God and told Him how the matter stood, prayed His forgiveness, renewed their vow, and God opened the windows of heaven and came back to them and all the old prosperity,Joseph Parker, D D<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Restore to God His due in tithe and time;
A tithe purloined cankers the whole estate.<\/p>\n

G. Herbert<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I cannot love Thee as I would,
Yet pardon me, O Highest God!
My life, and all I call my own,
I lay before Thy mercy throne:
And if a thousand lives were mine,
O sweetest Lord, they should be Thine,
And scanty would the offering be,
So richly hast Thou loved me.<\/p>\n

From the German<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

APPENDIX: CONCERNING VOWS 27:134
A. VOWS OF PERSONS 27:18
TEXT 27:18<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/p>\n

And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,<\/p>\n

2<\/p>\n

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the persons shall be for Jehovah by thy estimation.<\/p>\n

3<\/p>\n

And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n

4<\/p>\n

And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.<\/p>\n

5<\/p>\n

And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.<\/p>\n

6<\/p>\n

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.<\/p>\n

7<\/p>\n

And if it be from sixty years old and upward; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.<\/p>\n

8<\/p>\n

But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him.<\/p>\n

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 27:18<\/strong><\/p>\n

669.<\/p>\n

In fulfilling a vow a price was placed upon the person or persons involved. Why?<\/p>\n

670.<\/p>\n

The money paid represented something. What was it?<\/p>\n

671.<\/p>\n

Why call it estimation if the price is pre-determined?<\/p>\n

672.<\/p>\n

A man from the age of 20 to 60 is of the most value. Why?<\/p>\n

673.<\/p>\n

Notice that a woman from 20 to 60 is worth the same amount for which our Lord was sold. Any significance?<\/p>\n

674.<\/p>\n

Why include such young ones in vows?<\/p>\n

675.<\/p>\n

A man is not worth much after 60. Is this the thought of Lev. 27:7<\/span>?<\/p>\n

676.<\/p>\n

A poor man can make a vow even if he does not have the money. How?<\/p>\n

PARAPHRASE 27:18<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Lord said to Moses, Tell the people of Israel that when a person makes a special vow to give himself to the Lord, he shall give these payments instead: A man from the age of twenty to sixty shall pay twenty-five dollars; a woman from the age of twenty to sixty shall pay fifteen dollars; a boy from five to twenty shall pay ten dollars; a girl, five dollars. A boy one month to five years old shall have paid for him two and a half dollars; a girl, one and a half dollars. A man over sixty shall pay seven and a half dollars; a woman, five dollars. But if the person is too poor to pay this amount, he shall be brought to the priest and the priest shall talk it over with him, and he shall pay as the priest shall decide.<\/p>\n

COMMENT 27:18<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev. 27:1-8<\/span> Why is this chapter on vows included? Perhaps because vows are mentioned five times in Leviticus and careful laws concerning their use were needed. Cf. Lev. 7:16<\/span>; Lev. 22:18<\/span>; Lev. 22:21<\/span>; Lev. 22:23<\/span>; Lev. 23:38<\/span>; Num. 30:1-2<\/span>; Ecc. 5:4-5<\/span>. Perhaps the purpose and form of vows is best stated in Deu. 23:21-23<\/span> : When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not be slack in paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and slackness would be sin in you. But if you refrain from vowing, it will not be sin in you. The vow which has passed your lips you shall be watchful to perform, a voluntary offering which you have made to the Lord your God, which you have promised with your mouth.<\/p>\n

Making a vow, therefore, or dedicating anything to the Lord by vowing, was not commanded, but was presupposed as a manifestation of reverence for God, sanctified by ancient tradition. (Keil). Cf. Pro. 20:25<\/span>. The form used in the first verse indicates a new revelation of God has been given by God to Moses. We like the very careful development of these verses by S.H. Kellogg:<\/p>\n

First, we have the law (Lev. 27:2-8<\/span>) concerning the vowing of persons. In this case it does not appear that it was intended that the personal vow should be fulfilled by the actual devotement of the service of the person to the sanctuary. For such service abundant provision was made by the separation of the Levites, and it can hardly be imagined that under ordinary conditions it would be possible to find special occupation about the sanctuary for all who might be prompted thus to dedicate themselves by a vow to the Lord. Moreover, apart from this, we read here of the vowing to the Lord of young children, from five years of age down to one month, from whom tabernacle service is not to be thought of.<\/p>\n

The vow which dedicated the person to the Lord was therefore usually discharged by the simple expedient of a commutation price to be paid into the treasury of the sanctuary, as the symbolic equivalent of the value of his self-dedication. The persons thus consecrated are said to be for the Lord, and this fact was to be recognised and their special dedication to Him discharged by the payment of a certain sum of money. The amount to be paid in each instance is fixed by the law before us, with an evident reference to the labour value of the person thus given to the Lord in the vow, as determined by two factorsthe sex and the age. Inasmuch as the woman is inferior in strength to the man, she is rated lower than he is. As affected by age, persons vowed are distributed into four classes: the lowest, from one month up to five years; the second, from five years to twenty; the third, from twenty to sixty; the fourth, from sixty years of age and upwards.<\/p>\n

The law takes first (Lev. 27:3-4<\/span>) the case of persons in the prime of their working powers, from twenty to sixty years old, for whom the highest commutation rate is fixed; namely, fifty shekels for the male and thirty for a female, after the shekel of the sanctuary, i.e., of full standard weight. If younger than this, obviously the labour value of the personss service would be less; it is therefore fixed (Lev. 27:5<\/span>) at twenty shekels for the male and ten for the female, if the age be from five to twenty; and if the person be over sixty, then (Lev. 27:7<\/span>), as the feebleness of age is coming on, the rate is fifteen shekels for the male and ten for the female. (These commutation rates are so low that it is plain that they could not have represented the actual value of the individuals labour. The highest sum which is named-fifty shekelsas the rate for a man from twenty to sixty years of age, taking the shekel as $0.5474, would only amount to $27.375. Even from this alone it is clear that, as stated above, the chief reference in these figures must have been symbolic of a claim of God upon the person, graded according to his capacity for service.) In the case of a child from one month to five years old, the rate is fixed (Lev. 27:6<\/span>) at five, or, if a female, then at three shekels. In this last case it will be observed that the rate for the male is the same as that appointed (Num. 18:15-16<\/span>) for the redemption of the firstborn, from a month old, in all cases. As in that ordinance, so here, the payment was merely a symbolic recognition of the special claim of God on the person, without any reference to a labour value.<\/p>\n

But although the sum was so small that even at the most it could not nearly represent the actual value of the labour of such as were able to labour, yet one can see that cases might occur when a man might be moved to make such a vow of dedication of himself or of a child to the Lord, while he was yet too poor to pay even such a small amount. Hence the kindly provision (Lev. 27:8<\/span>) that if any person be poorer than this estimation, he shall not therefore be excluded from the privilege of self-dedication to the Lord, but he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him.<\/p>\n

FACT QUESTIONS 27:18<\/strong><\/p>\n

669.<\/p>\n

The purpose of the dedicating ones self to the Lord was not for service in or around the tabernacle. How do we arrive at this conclusion?<\/p>\n

670.<\/p>\n

The money paid represented symbolicallywhat did it represent?<\/p>\n

671.<\/p>\n

Sex and age determined the cost. Why? Name the four classes.<\/p>\n

672.<\/p>\n

How long would the vow last? Imagine two or three possible purposes or projects for a vow.<\/p>\n

673.<\/p>\n

Those who were devoted to God and wanted to make a vow but had no money could do it. How?<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XXVII.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.<\/strong>Like the group of enactments contained in Lev. 25:1<\/span> to Lev. 26:45<\/span>, the regulations about the different kinds of vows are introduced with the formula which indicates that the section before us constitutes a separate Divine communication. As sundry allusions are made throughout this book to vows, thus legally acknowledging the existence of the ancient practice of votive offerings (Lev. 7:16<\/span>; Lev. 22:18<\/span>; Lev. 22:21<\/span>; Lev. 22:23<\/span>; Lev. 23:38<\/span>), the Levitical code, which is pre-eminently designed to uphold the holiness of the sanctuary and its sacrifices, as well as the holiness of the priests and the people, would be incomplete without defining the nature and obligation of these self-imposed sacrifices.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

This Is The Word Of Yahweh ( Lev 27:1<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/strong>. <\/p>\n

Lev 27:1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’ <\/p>\n

It is once more stressed that we have here a word from Yahweh through Moses. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Lev 27:32<\/strong><\/span>  And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:32<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “passeth under the rod” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> A similar passage in Jer 33:13<\/span> confirms that the phrase “passeth under the rod” was a method of counting the flock.<\/p>\n

Jer 33:13<\/span>, “In the cities of the mountains, in the cities of the vale, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them , saith the LORD.”<\/p>\n

Lev 27:33<\/strong><\/span>  He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:34<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>  These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/strong> Of Men and Beasts<\/p>\n

v. 1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,<\/strong> <\/p>\n

v. 2. Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow,<\/strong> an exceptional, unusual, special promise to the Lord, which involved the offering of his own body to the Lord for some service in His worship, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation;<\/strong> the redemption from the obligations of the promise had to be made in accordance with the estimate given out, first by Moses and later by the priest in charge. The fulfillment of the vow consisted in this, that the person concerned paid the price of the estimation to the Sanctuary. <\/p>\n

v. 3. And thy estimation shall be of the male,<\/strong> in the case of a man, from twenty years old even unto sixty years old; even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the Sanctuary<\/strong> (about $32). <\/p>\n

v. 4. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels<\/strong> (about $19. 20). <\/p>\n

v. 5. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels<\/strong> (about $12. 80) and for the female ten shekels<\/strong> (about $6. 40). <\/p>\n

v. 6. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver<\/strong> (about $3. 20), and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver<\/strong> (about $1. 92). <\/p>\n

v. 7. And if it be from sixty years old and above,<\/strong> at the time of life when the bodily strength usually will not permit strenuous service; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels<\/strong> (about $9. 60) and for the female ten shekels<\/strong> (about $6. 40). <\/p>\n

v. 8. And if he be poorer than thy estimation,<\/strong> if he cannot afford the price of redemption according to the priest’s estimate, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him,<\/strong> fix the price of redemption in proportion to the person’s ability to pay; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him. <\/strong> This special ordinance made it possible even for the very poor to dedicate themselves to the Lord by a vow; for the Lord’s mercy and kindness at all times stands out with special force. <\/p>\n

v. 9. And if it be a beast whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord,<\/strong> that is, if the vow concerns such an animal, all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy,<\/strong> dedicated to Him, set aside subject to His orders. <\/p>\n

v. 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad or a bad for a good;<\/strong> for the vow, having once been made, could not be recalled; and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy,<\/strong> both of them devoted to the Lord, subject to His disposal, those without blemish being used for sacrifices, those not perfect being allotted to the priest. <\/p>\n

v. 11. And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the Lord, then he shall present the beast before the priest;<\/strong> <\/p>\n

v. 12. and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be. <\/strong> The priest was to fix a medium price, neither too high nor too low, for the proceeds of the sale were used in the interest of the Sanctuary. <\/p>\n

v. 13. But if he will at all redeem it,<\/strong> for his own use, then he shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation,<\/strong> as a sort of compensation for his act in taking the animal back for his own use. <\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

EXPOSITION<\/strong><\/p>\n

The final chapter, attached to the book after the concluding exhortation, is a short treatise on persons (Lev 27:2-8<\/span>), animals (Lev 27:9-13<\/span>), houses (Lev 27:14<\/span>, Lev 27:15<\/span>), lauds (Lev 27:16-24<\/span>), vowed to God; and on the commutation of vows.<\/p>\n

A man might vow to the service of God whatever he had a right over, that is, himself, his wife, his children, his slaves, his beasts, his houses, his fields. In case persons were vowed, the rule was that they should be redeemed at a certain price, though occasionally the redemption was not made. Vowing a person to God thus, was, as a rule, no more than vowing so much money to the use of the sanctuary as was fixed as the price of the redemption of the person vowed. Yet there is a great difference between the two acts of vowing a person and vowing the correlative sum of money. A man in great danger or distress might devote himself (Gen 28:20<\/span>) or another (Jdg 11:30<\/span>; 1Sa 1:11<\/span>) to God, when he never would have vowed money. Such vows were redeemable, and, as a rule, were redeemed, though there were some exceptions, as in the case of Samuel.<\/p>\n

If beasts were vowed to the Lord (Lev 27:9-13<\/span>), they could not be redeemed if they were such as could be sacrificed to him; if they were not such as could be sacrificed, they were to be valued by the priest, and either retained as a possession of the sanctuary, or, if the owner preferred it, redeemed by him at the price fixed and out-fifth additional.<\/p>\n

If houses were vowed to the Lord (Lev 27:14<\/span>, Lev 27:15<\/span>), they became the property of the sanctuary, unless they were redeemed at the valuation set upon them by the priest, with one-fifth additional.<\/p>\n

If hereditary lands were vowed to the Lord (Lev 27:16-21<\/span>), they became the possession of the sanctuary at the year of jubilee, unless they had been previously redeemed; redemption, however, was in this case the ordinary rule, and we do not hear of any accumulation of landed property in the hands of the priests from this source. In the ease of a field which was not an hereditary possession, but a purchase, being vowed to the Lord (Lev 27:22-24<\/span>), the commutation sum was paid down “in that day,” <\/em>that is, on the spot in a lump sum, the land going back at the jubilee to the original owners from whom the temporary possession had been bought by the man who made the vow.<\/p>\n

A section is added forbidding the firstborn of animals, things devoted, and tithes to be vowed, because they were already the Lord’s; allowing the redemption of the firstborn of unclean animals, and of the tithes of corn and fruits, but prohibiting redemption in the ease of sacrificial animals, of things devoted, and of the tithes of animals.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:2<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

When a man shall make a singular vow,<\/strong>literally, when a man shall separate a vow, <\/em>that is, make a special vow <\/em>(see Num 6:2<\/span>)the persons <\/strong>shall be for the Lord by thy estimation;<\/strong> that is, when a man has vowed himself or another person to the Lord, the priest shall declare the amount at which the person vowed is to be redeemed.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:3-7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The sum at which a man between twenty and sixty years of age was to be redeemed was fifty shekels, equal to f6 9s. 2d.; <\/em>a woman, thirty shekels, or f3 17s. 6d.;<\/em> a youth between five and twenty years of age, twenty shekels, or f2 11s. 8d.;<\/em> a maiden between the same ages, ten shekels, or 5s. 10d.;<\/em> a boy between one month and five years, five shekels, or 12s. 11d.;<\/em> a girl between the same ages, three shekels, or 7s. 9d.;<\/em> a man above sixty years, fifteen shekels, or f1 18s. 9d.;<\/em> a woman of the same age, ten shekels, or f1 5s. 10d.<\/em><\/p>\n

Lev 27:8<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

A discretion is left with the priest to lower these valuations in ease the man who has made the vow is very poor. According to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:9<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Lev 27:10<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In case a clean animal is vowed to the Lord, it is not to be exchanged for another on the plea of not being good enough or being too good for sacrifice. If any such attempt is made, both animals are to be given up and sacrificed, or, if blemished, added to the herd of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:11-13<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

An unclean animal, which might not be sacrificed, if vowed, was to be valued at a price fixed by the priest. If its original owner took it back again, he was to pay this price and one-fifth more than the sum named; if he did not, it became the property of the sanctuary. The words, the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad,<\/strong> should rather be rendered, the priest shall estimate it between good and bad, <\/em>that is, at a moderate price, as though it were neither very good nor very bad. And so in the next verse.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:14<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Lev 27:15<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The rule as to the redemption of houses is the same as that regarding the redemption of unclean animals. The ordinary practice was to redeem.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:16-21<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In case a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field of his possession,<\/strong> that is, <\/em>of his hereditary lands, the redemption price is fixed by the quantity of seed required for sowing it. If it requires a homer, or five bushels and a half, of barley seed to crop it, the redemption price is fifty shekels, or f6 9s. 2d; <\/em>plus <\/em>one-fifth, that is, f7 15s; <\/em>supposing that the vow had been made in the year succeeding the jubilee; but if the vow was made at any time after the jubile,<\/strong> the value of the previous harvests was deducted from this sum. The amount does not seem to have been paid in a lump sum, but by annual installments of one shekel and one-fifth of a shekel, equal to 3s. 1\/5d; <\/em>each year. In case he had sold his interest in the field up to the approaching jubilee before making his vow, then no redemption was allowed; he paid nothing, but the field passed from him to the sanctuary at the jubilee.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:22-24<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The case of a man who shall sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession,<\/strong> or inheritance, <\/em>is necessarily different, because he was not the owner of the land, but only the possessor of it until the next jubilee. For this reason he had to pay the redemption price immediately in that day,<\/strong> the land, of course, reverting to the original owner at the jubilee.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The estimation is to be made according to the shekel of the sanctuary,<\/strong> that is, the shekel at its full value, before worn by use in traffic (see Exo 30:13<\/span>; Num 3:47<\/span>; Num 18:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The law of vows and their commutation is further declared in four subjects:<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the firstborn of animals; <\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> things already devoted; <\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> tithes of the produce of the land; <\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> tithes of the produce of the cattle.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26-28<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The firstborn of animals were already the Lord’s, and they could not, therefore, be vowed to him afresh; the sacrificial animals were to be offered in sacrifice (Exo 13:15<\/span>); the ass was to be redeemed by a sheep or be put to death (Exo 13:13<\/span>; Exo 34:20<\/span>); other unclean animals are to be either redeemed at the fixed price, plus <\/em>one-fifth, or, if not redeemed, sold for the benefit of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:28<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Lev 27:29<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Whatever is already cherem <\/em>(a word here first used as a term well understood), that is, devoted <\/em>to God, whether devoted for the purpose of destruction or of entire surrender to him, may be neither redeemed nor sold. Whether it be of man,<\/strong> like the Canaanites at Hormah (Num 21:2<\/span>), or of beast,<\/strong> as the sheep and oxen of the Amalekites (1Sa 15:21<\/span>), or of the field,<\/strong> as referred to in Lev 27:21<\/span>, or of other inanimate objects, as the cities of Hormah (Num 21:2<\/span>), it is either to be put to death or given up without reserve or commutation to God’s ministers. In the case of men they must be put to death. “This provision would have applied only to the devoting of those who were already manifestly under the ban of Jehovah those guilty of such outrageous and flagrant violation of the fundamental law of the covenant that they manifestly came under the penalty of death. Such persons, instead of being tried and condemned, might be at once devoted and put to death” (Gardiner). “To this it may be added that the devotion by ban (cherem<\/em>) <\/em>of any object or person was not to be done by private persons, at their own will, but was performed by the civil magistrates, under known conditions and laws; e.g. <\/em>the cities of idolaters, such as Jericho, were so devoted, and the inhabitants, by the command of God himself, who made his people to be the executioners of his judgments against inveterate idolatry (see Deu 13:13<\/span>; Jos 6:17<\/span>)” (Wordsworth).<\/p>\n

Lev 27:30-32<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Tithes, like the cherem, <\/em>are introduced as things well known. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20<\/span>; Heb 7:4<\/span>). Jacob vowed the tenth to the Lord (Gen 28:22<\/span>), whence we see that the practice of the payment of tithes was not of Mosaic institution, but immemorial. The duty was, however, commanded afresh for the Israelites. “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” (Num 18:21<\/span>), and of this tithe they were to pay a tenth to the priests (Num 18:26<\/span>). Being already the Lord’s, the tithe of the corn and fruits could not be vowed to the Lord, but it could be redeemed, or commuted, by the owner paying one-fifth more than the price at which it was valued.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:32<\/span><\/strong>, <\/strong>Lev 27:33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The tithe of the cattle could neither be vowed nor redeemed. As the young oxen and sheep passed under the rod by which they were counted by the herdsman, the tenth animal was touched (the rod, according to tradition, having been dipped in red paint), and handed over to the Levites. There was to be no change made in the animals, nor was commutation allowed.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The final verse of the previous chapter is repeated after the further legislation on vows and on their commutation has been added, to show that it too makes part of the Sinaitic code.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOMILETICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Vows are not instituted by the Mosaic legislation; they were already in existence as a habit of the Hebrew people, and they are only regulated by Moses. The principle on the subject of vows is that no one was bound to make a vow, but that when a vow was made, it must be observed by the payment of the thing vowed or its recognized commutation. Thus Deu 23:21<\/span>, “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.” And Num 30:2<\/span>, “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” And Ecc 5:5<\/span>, “Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.”<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> OLD<\/strong>–TESTAMENT<\/strong> VOWS<\/strong> WERE<\/strong> PROMISES<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GIVE<\/strong> UP<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HIM<\/strong> SOMETHING<\/strong> OF<\/strong> VALUE<\/strong> ON<\/strong> CONDITION<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DELIVERANCE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> DISTRESS<\/strong> OR<\/strong> HELP<\/strong> IN<\/strong> ATTAINING<\/strong> SOMETHING<\/strong> DESIRED<\/strong>. Examples:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Jacob’s vow: “And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Gen 28:20-22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Jephthah’s vow: “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and (or) I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Jdg 11:30<\/span>, Jdg 11:31<\/span>). What Jephthah appeared to contemplate as likely to meet him was either a non-sacrificial animal, which would then be handed over to the sanctuary (Lev 27:11-13<\/span>), or a sacrificial animal, which would be offered up. His daughter came under the first head (Lev 27:9<\/span>, Lev 27:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. Hannah’s vow: “And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head” (1Sa 1:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. Absalom’s pretended vow: “For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the Lord shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord (offer sacrifices in Hebron)” (2Sa 15:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> CHRISTIAN<\/strong> VOWS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> PROMISES<\/strong> MADE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GOD<\/strong>, DIFFERING<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THE<\/strong> JEWISH<\/strong> VOW<\/strong> BY<\/strong> BEING<\/strong> INDEPENDENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> ANY<\/strong> DELIVERANCE<\/strong> OR<\/strong>, BENEFIT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong> RECEIVED<\/strong> IN<\/strong> RETURN<\/strong>. Examples:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. The baptismal vow, ratified and confirmed in Confirmation: “Wilt thou then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life? I will.” “Do you here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own person? I do” (Baptism and Confirmation Services).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. The marriage vow: “Wilt thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony?” “Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of matrimony?” “I will” (Form of Solemnization of Matrimony).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. The ordination vow: “Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of God?” “I will so do, by the help of the Lord” (The Ordering of Priests).<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> CONDITIONS<\/strong> UNDER<\/strong> WHICH<\/strong> VOWS<\/strong> AND<\/strong> OATHS<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> NOT<\/strong>, OR<\/strong> CEASE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> BE<\/strong>, OBLIGATORY<\/strong>. Jeremiah writes (Jer 4:2<\/span>), “And thou shalt swear, The Lord liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness.” Isaiah speaks of those “which <\/em>swear by the Name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness” (Isa 48:1<\/span>). Accordingly, any oath or vow is void which was an unrighteous oath or vow when taken; and the sin of breaking it, though a sin, is less than that of keeping it. Therefore Herod ought not to have kept his oath to the daughter of Herodias (Mat 14:9<\/span>); and the observance of their oath by the forty conspirators who had bound themselves to kill Paul, would have been a sin on their part (Act 23:12-21<\/span>). Further, a vow, as distinct from an oath or contract, ceases to be obligatory if the person concerned comes to regard it as unrighteous and wrong for him to fulfill with his changed mind or under changed circumstances. Thus, the vow taken at ordination to administer the sacraments in the form received by a special Church, is not binding if a man ceases on conscientious grounds to be a member of that Church, and. the vow of celibacy taken by Luther and others, who have become reformers, no longer binds them when they have come to the conviction that the vow was unrighteous, and when they have rejected the discipline of their Church. The marriage vow, however, stands upon a different basis, because marriage is a contract, containing not only a vow to God, but also a promise to man, by the non-fulfillment of which wrong would be done. f1<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

On keeping vows.<\/strong><\/p>\n

cf. Ecc 5:4<\/span>, Ecc 5:5<\/span>; Gen 28:20-22<\/span>; Gen 35:1-7<\/span>. We have in this apparent appendix to the book an interesting chapter about keeping vows. Religious enthusiasm may very properly express itself in the dedication either of one’s self, or a relative in whose destiny we have a voice, or a beast, or a house, or finally a field. Such a sense of special obligation may be laid upon us that we feel constrained to dedicate either a person, an animal, or a piece of property unto God. But it may be highly inconvenient for the priests to accept of the dedicated article at the tabernacle. It may be much more convenient to receive, in lieu thereof, its money equivalent, and so a scale of charges is here given, according to which the vow’s value is to be estimated.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> WE<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> DEDICATE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THIS<\/strong> SPECIAL<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> ONLY<\/strong> WHAT<\/strong> LIES<\/strong> BEYOND<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LORD<\/strong>‘S USUAL<\/strong> DUES<\/strong>. The tithes, the firstlings, and the Nazarites may be regarded as the Lord’s ordinary dues. We have no fight to “make a fuss” about what is lawfully his own. The margin beyond the tithe is broad enough from which to make our special vows without encroaching upon the tithe. Let the nine-tenths or the four-fifths, according as we regard a single or a double tithe the Jewish proportion in systematic giving, be the source from which we shall draw our special vows.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> A GOOD<\/strong> THING<\/strong> TO<\/strong> GIVE<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> INCREASING<\/strong> GRATITUDE<\/strong> SUCH<\/strong> SPECIAL<\/strong> OUTLETS<\/strong>. For after all, the Lord has given us everything, and may demand all if he pleases. When he is so “modest in his demands”if we may be allowed such an expression regarding his claim upon the tithesit is surely becoming in us from time to time to give our hearts free play, and have persons or things specially set apart for him.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> BUT<\/strong> WE<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> BE<\/strong> RASH<\/strong> OR<\/strong> INCONSIDERATE<\/strong> IN<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> VOWS<\/strong>. Jephthah, for example, was most rash in his vow. So was Saul in the war with the Philistines, when he almost insisted on Jonathan dying because, in eating a little honey in the wood, he had in ignorance transgressed the vow of the inconsiderate king. We have no right to make “rash promises” to any one, much less to God.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> WHEN<\/strong> WE<\/strong> HAVE<\/strong> REGISTERED<\/strong> A SPECIAL<\/strong> VOW<\/strong> WE<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> KEEP<\/strong> IT<\/strong> SCRUPULOUSLY<\/strong>. There is a temptation to make liberal vows on condition of receiving certain blessings from God, and then to forget them when the blessing is received. Let us take in illustration the case of Jacob. When he was posting in hot haste towards Padan-aram for fear of the injured Esau, he spent a remarkable night at Bethel. God there gave him a reassuring vision. Sin, he saw, had not separated him altogether from heaven, but even a deceiver like himself might return penitently to God and rise on the rounds of a ladder of light into fellowship and peace. In this ecstasy he registers in the calm morning light a vow: “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee” (Gen 28:20-22<\/span>). Did Jacob keep his vow? Surely the moment he returns to Canaan he will make for Bethel, and set up his altar, and discharge his vow? Nothing of the kind. He forgot all about it, and went to Succoth, and then to Shechem, and it was not till Dinah had been defiled, and members of his family were becoming idolaters, and God commanded him to go to Bethel and perform it, that the wily old patriarch was brought to a sense of his duty (Gen 35:1-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Let us, then, enter upon our vows calmly, deliberately, without any unseemly haste. Then, whatever it may cost, no matter how great the sacrifice, let us undertake it, and our whole religious life will rise to the occasion. The future life, into which we hope to enter, will be so completely dedicated to God’s glory, that the distinction we must needs now make between ordinary and special vows shall be lost completely, for the enthusiasm which leads to such special vows now shall make them the ordinary rule for ever.R.M.E.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-25<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Singular vows.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The loving heart will ask not only what must, <\/em>but what may, <\/em>be done; and the sacrifices offered in the flames of love are acceptable to God (2Ch 6:8<\/span>). These are the principles which underlie the laws concerning singular vows.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SINGULARITY<\/strong> LIES<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> ELEMENT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SEPARATION<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. Hence the subject of the vow is styled a Nazarite.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> From , to separate, to consecrate (see Num 6:1-27<\/span>; Jdg 13:5<\/span>; 1Sa 1:11<\/span>, 1Sa 1:28<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Probably the prayer of Jabez was of the nature of a singular vow (1Ch 4:10<\/span>). Paul seems to have taken upon himself such a vow (see Act 18:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Jesus was a Nazarite in spirit.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> He was not a Nazarite in the letter (Mat 11:19<\/span>). What a rebuke is here to the uncharitableness of certain extreme advocates of total abstinence!<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Yet in spirit was Jesus the Grand Antitype of all those anciently separated to God. Hence his dwelling at Nazareth was in the order of providence, and in fulfillment of prophecy, viz. that he should be called a Nazarene (Mat 2:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. So are true Christians.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The disciples of Jesus, who were first called “Christians” at Antioch, were also distinguished as “Nazarenes” (see Act 11:26<\/span>; Act 24:5<\/span>). They do not appear to have refused either title.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Professors should strive to prove themselves worthy of both. All Christians, in their baptism and in their voluntary acceptance of Christ, are bound by sacred vows.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The true merit of our modern abstainers from intoxicants who are so for the glory of God, is that of the Nazarite.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THINGS<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> BE<\/strong> CONSECRATED<\/strong> AS<\/strong> WELL<\/strong> AS<\/strong> PERSONS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. A<\/em> beast might be the subject of a singular vow.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The Law prescribes <\/em>that should it be such as might be offered in sacrifice to God, it must not be exchanged (Lev 27:9<\/span>, Lev 27:10<\/span>). The reason appears to be that in this case it must be looked upon as a type of Christ, and for him there can be no substitute.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> But if unsuitable for sacrifice, <\/em>then it becomes <\/em>the priests’. In this case it became the subject of estimation, and from the value put upon it by the priest there is no appeal. This assumes that his valuation is just; and this certainly is true of his Great Antitype, who will be our Judge.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. A<\/em> house may be the subject of a singular vow.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> By means of dedicated things the sanctuary came <\/em>to be the depository of great treasure (1Ki 15:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The riches of the gospel are principally spiritual. The houses which enrich the Church are saintly families.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. A<\/em> field might be the subject of a singular vow.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The estimation of the land is by the quantity of seed sown in it, fifty shekels to the homer (Lev 27:16<\/span>). But the estimation was modified with respect to the law of the jubilee. The values of all earthly things are influenced <\/em>by their relation to things heavenly.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> If the owner would redeem that he vowed to God, he must add a fifth to the estimated value. This was a general rule; and was instituted to discourage fickleness in relation to the service of God.J.A.M.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Devoted things.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The earlier part of this chapter is mainly concerned with things sanctified to God by vows.<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> DEVOTED<\/strong> THINGS<\/strong> DIFFER<\/strong> FROM<\/strong> THINGS<\/strong> SANCTIFIED<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. In that they may not be redeemed.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Things sanctified might be redeemed. The laws of estimation proceeded <\/em>upon the recognition of this principle.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> But it is otherwise with things devoted (see Lev 27:6<\/span>, Lev 27:21<\/span>, Lev 27:28<\/span>). They are in the category of things “most holy,” which only may be touched by the priests.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Hence firstlings must not be sanctified (Lev 27:26<\/span>). The reason is that they are already the property of God. They can neither be given to him nor redeemed from him. They were types of Christ, who is therefore called the “Firstfruits of every creature”the Antitype of all the firstfruits.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Persons when devoted were doomed to die.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Such was the fate of the enemies of the Lord. The Canaanites as unfit to live were so devoted (see Exo 22:19<\/span>; Deu 25:19<\/span>; Jos 6:17; 1Sa 15:3<\/span>; 1Ki 20:42<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Here is no reference to human sacrifices, as some have imagined. It is a question of justice and judgment upon the wicked.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> But by a rash vow the innocent may suffer. Thus through the adjuration of Saul Jonathan’s life was imperiled (1Sa 14:1-52<\/span>). Jephthah’s vow compromised the life of his daughter (Jdg 11:30<\/span>, Jdg 11:31<\/span>, Jdg 11:39<\/span>). The reading in the margin (Lev 27:31<\/span>) is preferable. Jephthah could not make a burnt offering of anything unsuited to that purpose, and whatever else came forth he vowed not to sanctify but to devote.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> The severity of God upon those devoted for their wickedness <\/em>should admonish sinners of the formidableness of his anger in the great day of his wrath.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> CONCERNING<\/strong> TITHES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. These are now formally required.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> They were originally vowed to God (see Gen 14:19<\/span>; Gen 28:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The acts of the patriarchs bound their posterity. Hence <\/em>Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek, <\/em>being yet ix the loins of Abraham (Heb 7:9<\/span>, Heb 7:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Therefore God now claims them (Lev 27:30<\/span>, Lev 27:32<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> The spirit of this law is still binding upon the spiritual seed of Abraham (see 1Co 9:11<\/span>; Gal 6:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. Things marked as tithes must not be exchanged.<\/em><\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> The expression, “passeth under the rod,” is thus explained by the rabbins: “When a man was to give the tithe of his sheep or calves to God, he was to shut up the whole flock in one fold, in which there was one narrow door capable of letting out one at a time. The owner stood by the door with a rod in his hand, the end of which was dipped in vermilion or red ochre. The mothers of those lambs or calves stood without, and as the young ones passed out, when the tenth came he touched it with the colour, and this was received as the legitimate tithe.”<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Here note the vicarious principle. When the tenth was taken, nine went free. Christ is our Tenth (see Isa 6:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> The tenth must not be exchanged for better or worse. Providence is presumed to have guided the rod. While Christ becomes the Substitute for mankind, no one can take his place.J.A.M.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-33<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Spontaneous devotion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The relations between God and his ancient people were not so rigid as they are sometimes supposed to have been. It was not all enactment on the one hand, and obedience or disobedience on the other. We find illustration here<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> OF<\/strong> GOD<\/strong> LEAVES<\/strong> AMPLE<\/strong> ROOM<\/strong> FOR<\/strong> THE<\/strong> PLAY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> SPONTANEOUS<\/strong> DEVOTION<\/strong>. Under the inspiring influence of some signal mercies, individual or national, the Israelite might devote to God either<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> a person (Lev 27:2<\/span>), or<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> an animal (Lev 27:9<\/span>), or<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> a house (Lev 27:14<\/span>), or<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> a piece of land (Lev 27:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

This was to be a singular <\/em>vow (Lev 27:2<\/span>), the dedication of something over and above that which was, by law, already appropriated to the service of Jehovah (see Lev 27:26<\/span>, Lev 27:30<\/span>). It was and is the will of our God that special favours received at his hand, or special influences wrought by his Spirit in our heart, should be marked by optional and exceptional services on our part. We may, when thus animated by gratitude for his kindness, or penetrated with a sense of his goodness and grace, freely and spontaneously bring to the altar of our Lord<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> our possessions,<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> our time and labour,<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> our children,<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> any precious thing which we are not bound to give, but which we voluntarily and joyfully lay at his feet.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> FORM<\/strong> OF<\/strong> OUR<\/strong> DEVOTION<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> CHANGE<\/strong> SO<\/strong> LONG<\/strong> AS<\/strong> THE<\/strong> SPIRIT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> RETAINED<\/strong>. The Israelite who vowed a “person” <\/em>redeemed the vow by presenting money according to a nicely graduated scale (Lev 27:3-8<\/span>); or he might redeem a beast by paying money equal to its estimated value, together with one-fifth part added thereto (Lev 27:13<\/span>); so with a piece of land (Lev 27:19<\/span>): In a similar way, we may resolve and may undertake to give ourselves or our possessions to some particular sacred cause, and there may arise conditions which render it undesirable or even impossible for us to complete our work. In such case our Lord does not hold us to a mere literal fulfillment; what he looks for, and should certainly receive at our hands, is some equivalent in which we at least as freely <\/em>express our gratitude and devotion. The essential thing is to preserve the spirit of our piety, and also to maintain a good measure of its most suitable expression, whatever that, at any time, may be.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> WE<\/strong> MAY<\/strong> GO<\/strong> SO<\/strong> FAR<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> WAY<\/strong> OF<\/strong> DEDICATION<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IT<\/strong> IS<\/strong> NOT<\/strong> PERMISSIBLE<\/strong> TO<\/strong> RETIRE<\/strong>. The Jew under the Law might, as we have seen, redeem certain things at a certain point; but there was a point at which everything was irredeemable. No “devoted thing” could be redeemed (Lev 27:28<\/span>, Lev 27:29<\/span>). A beast “devoted to the Lord” must be offered up; an enemy once “devoted” must be put to death. When this point is reached in Christian consecration must be left to each Christian conscience. But we may contend that withdrawal is seldom, if ever, allowable when<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> there has been a solemn and formal dedication of person or substance in the presence of Christ and his people;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> an overt action has been taken which commits other people, and when our retirement would involve theirs also;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> such withdrawal would bring dishonour on the sacred Name we bear. Under such conditions as these we must proceed at all risks and costs, and having vowed, we must “pay unto the Lord our God” (Psa 66:11<\/span>).C.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:3-7<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The distinctions which remain.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A pious Hebrew might, under a sense of gratitude, or in an hour of spiritual elevation, dedicate something dear to himself unto Jehovah. It might be a person, or an animal, or a field. If the first of these, he or she was to be redeemed, and a table was drawn according to which the redemption was to be made. In this scale, we find the extremes of life, age and infancy, valued at the least sum, youth at more, and prime at the most; we find also woman placed lower in the list than man. These distinctions in the estimated value of human life may remind us<\/p>\n

I. THAT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> GOSPEL<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRIST<\/strong> THERE<\/strong> ARE<\/strong> NO<\/strong> DISTINCTIONS<\/strong> IN<\/strong> RESPECT<\/strong> OF<\/strong> AGE<\/strong>, SEX<\/strong>, OR<\/strong> CLASS<\/strong>. Age is not less welcome because it is old, nor youth because it is young, nor poverty because it is poor, nor wealth because it is rich, to the Saviour of souls. Woman stands on the same ground with man, and her love and service count for as much in the Lord’s esteem as his. “In Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28<\/span>). There is no respect of persons with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> IN<\/strong> THE<\/strong> VALUE<\/strong> OF<\/strong> CHRISTIAN<\/strong> SERVICE<\/strong> SOME<\/strong> DISTINCTIONS<\/strong> MUST<\/strong> REMAIN<\/strong>. The kind of service we render our Lord differs at different periods of our life. Obviously that of the little child is distinct from that of the man in the maturity of his strength. The scale of redemption under the Law, as given in this passage, suggests:<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. That age, though of declining value, has its tribute to bring (Lev 27:7<\/span>); it can bring its purity, its calmness, its caution, its contentedness, its patient waiting: “planted <\/em>in the house of the Lord, we shall still bring forth fruit in old age” (Psa 92:13<\/span>, Psa 92:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. That prime has the largest offering to lay on the altar of the Lord (Lev 27:3<\/span>). Manhood brings its strength, its maturity, its experience, its learning, its vigour.<\/p>\n

3<\/strong>. That youth is of great account in the estimate of God (Lev 27:5<\/span>); it can bring to the service of Christ its eagerness, its ardour, its faith, its devotedness.<\/p>\n

4<\/strong>. That childhood has its figure also in the Divine reckoning (Lev 27:6<\/span>); it can bring its innocence, <\/em>its trustfulness, its docility, its winsomeness, its obedience. We are thus reminded that, while there is no stage in our life when we are not heartily welcome to our Saviour, there is at each <\/em>period some special work we can do, some peculiar service we can render him, and we may add that every offering of every kind is acceptable <\/em>to him if it be presented in humility and with a willing mind.C.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Law and the gospel.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. It may be rightly said that true religion is essentially the same everywhere and at all times. Whithersoever and whensoever we look, we shall find the same cardinal elementsthe fear of God, the love of God, respect for our own spiritual nature, regard for the rights and claims of others, abstinence from that which is immoral, kindness and helpfulness, etc.<\/p>\n

2<\/strong>. It may also be truly said that in the Law there was much more than many have supposed of those elements which are prominent in the gospel: more of spiritual freedom, of joy in God, of happy and sacred fellowship than we are apt to associate with “Mount Sinai,” and “the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses.” When, therefore, we draw a distinction between the Law and the gospel, it must be remembered that it is not without important qualifications; that the Law had, in most cases, an aspect which was essentially Christian; and that, similarly, the gospel in most cases has an aspect which is legal. With this in mind, we may draw the contrast<\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> PREPARATORY<\/strong> AND<\/strong> PROPHETIC<\/strong>; the gospel is final and in fulfillment of that which had been anticipated. This, especially, in regard to sacrifice and offering.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> PRECEPTIVE<\/strong>; the gospel is suggestive. The one supplied a multitude of rules for the regulation of worship and of daily life, the other has few “commandments.” Its positive precepts are small in number, but it lays down those principles and implants that spirit by which the right and the wrong course are suggested, to be pursued or shunned by the obedient heart.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> WAS<\/strong> PROHIBITIVE<\/strong>; the gospel is inspiring. Not wholly, but strikingly, in each case. The Law continually said imperatively, “Thou shalt not;” the gospel says encouragingly, “Wilt not thou?” The Law interdicted very many things, and an Israelite was obedient very much according to his conscientious avoidance of that which was forbidden. The gospel incites to feelings, words, actions of goodness, wisdom, grace, helpfulness; and a Christian man is obedient and acceptable in proportion as he opens his heart to heavenly inspiration, and is stirred to be and do that which is noble and Christ-like.<\/p>\n

IV.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> MADE<\/strong> ITS<\/strong> APPEAL<\/strong> TO<\/strong> HUMAN<\/strong> EAR<\/strong>; the gospel to human love. Jehovah was, indeed, presented often to the Hebrew as his Redeemer from bondage; but, upon the whole, he was so revealed as, above everything, to strike the soul with profoundest reverence and awe. The Jew never ceased to hear the thunderings and see the lightnings of Sinai. The motto of the devout Israelite was this”I fear God.” In the gospel God is manifested in Jesus Christ, our Saviour, our Friend, our sympathizing High Priest; and, while not without deepest reverence, we feel that “the love of God in Christ Jesus” is the spring and the strength of our devotion; it is the key to which the sacred music of our life is set.<\/p>\n

V.<\/strong> THAT<\/strong> THE<\/strong> LAW<\/strong> HAD<\/strong> RESPECT<\/strong> TO<\/strong> EARTHLY<\/strong> LIFE<\/strong>; the gospel to the farthest future. The Law said, “Do this, and thou shalt live long in the land;” “do this, and the rains shall fall and the vines shall bear and the barns be full;” but the gospel says, “Do thisrepent, believe, follow Christ; and while there shall be sufficiency of present food for present need, there shall be abounding grace in the heart, fruitfulness in the life, peace in death, and a long eternity of sinless service and unclouded joy in the presence of the King, in the home of God.C.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

HOMILIES BY R.A. REDFORD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-34<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Vows and dues.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.<\/strong> We find here a representation of the union of righteousness and grace in the kingdom of God. The sacredness of vows and dues; but the estimation, by the priest, according to the ability <\/em>of him that made the vow. The Law makes its claim, but God provides against its rigour.<\/p>\n

II.<\/strong> Comparison of the Law of God as given to his ancient people with the imperfect and cruel laws of merely human origin. Especially as to human sacrifices. The only human life which could be vowed to God was that which was already doomed by right of war or otherwise. The animal sacrifices, being strictly prescribed, excluded human sacrifice. The true religion is the only protection of human life. Those who profess enthusiasm of humanity, instead of and as a substitute for faith in Christ, have no security to offer that their inadequate theory of human obligation will extirpate cruelty and promote the happiness of the world.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> The commutation of vows and dues pointed to the pitifulness of Jehovah, who, while upholding the inviolability of his Law, would yet, provide for the weakness of man. “He knoweth our frame,” etc. <\/em>These glimpses of love in the midst of the thunders of Sinai were the promises of a revelation of the Divine nature in which love should predominatea new covenant, which should take up into itself all that was enduring and Divine in the old. Underneath all the regulations of Leviticus lies the original promise of redemption, and through all the vail of the Mosaic economy shines the Shechinah glory of God manifest in the fleshthe Prophet, Priest, and King, who came, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it, and in whom all the promises of God are Yea and Amen.R.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Lev 27:1<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> It has been thought that some of the people, moved by the promises and threats in the last chapter, expressed a resolution of dedicating themselves and their goods more immediately to God; and that this gave occasion to the following rules for the due regulation of such vows. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

APPENDIX
Of Vows<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-34<\/span><\/p>\n

1And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be<\/em> for the Lord by thy estimation [special1<\/span> vow, the souls shall be<\/em> to the Lord according3to an2<\/span> estimation]. And thy2 estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy2 estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4And if it be<\/em> a female, then thy2 estimation shall 5be thirty shekels. And if it be<\/em> from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy2 estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6And if it be<\/em> for a month old even unto five years old, then thy2 estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy2 estimation shall be<\/em> three 7shekels of silver. And if it be<\/em> from sixty years old and above; if it be<\/em> a male, then thy2 estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 8But if he be poorer than thy2 [be too poor to pay<\/em> the2] estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him: according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.<\/p>\n

9And if it be<\/em> a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord, all that any<\/em> man<\/em> giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy. 10He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for 11beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy. And if it be<\/em> any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice [an offering3<\/span>] unto the Lord, then he shall present the beast before the priest: 12and the priest shall value [estimate4<\/span>] it, whether it be good or bad: as thou valuest it, who art<\/em> the priest [according to the5<\/span> estimation4 of the priest], so shall it be. 13But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part<\/em> thereof unto thy2 estimation.<\/p>\n

14And when a man shall sanctify his house to be<\/em> holy unto the Lord, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. 15And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part<\/em> of the money of thy2 estimation unto it, and it shall be his.<\/p>\n

16And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part<\/em> of a field of his possession [inheritance6<\/span>], then thy2 estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley seed shall be valued<\/em> at fifty shekels of silver. 7<\/span>17If he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy2 estimation it shall stand. 18But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy2 estimation. 19And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part<\/em> of the money of thy2 estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. 20And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more. 21But the field, when it goeth out in the jubile, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted; the possession 22[inheritance5] thereof shall be the priests. And if a man<\/em> sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is<\/em> not of the fields of his possession 23[inheritance5]; then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy2 estimation, even<\/em> unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine2 estimation in that day, as<\/em> a holy thing unto the Lord. 24In the year of the jubile the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even<\/em> to him to whom the possession [inheritance5] of the land did belong.<\/em><\/p>\n

25And all thy2 estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.<\/p>\n

26Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the Lords firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be<\/em> ox, or sheep [one of the flock8<\/span>], it is<\/em> the Lords.27And if it be<\/em> of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem [free9<\/span>] it<\/em> according to thine2 estimation, and shall add a fifth part<\/em> of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy2 estimation.<\/p>\n

28Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both<\/em> of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is<\/em> most holy unto the Lord. 29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed [freed8], but<\/em> shall surely be put to death.<\/p>\n

30And all the tithe of the land, whether<\/em> of the seed of the land, or<\/em> of the fruit ofthe tree, is<\/em> the Lords: it is<\/em> holy unto the Lord. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought<\/em> of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part<\/em> thereof.<\/p>\n

32And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even<\/em> of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. 33He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.<\/p>\n

34These are<\/em> the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.<\/p>\n

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lev 27:2<\/span>. does not mean to dedicate or set apart a vow, but to make a special vow. Keil.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:2-3<\/span>; Lev 27:5-8<\/span>, etc.<\/em> The second in is formative of the noun, by reduplication of the third radical: it is not the pronominal suffix. Horsley. The Heb. subst. , estimation<\/em> or value,<\/em> is never found in Scripture, but with the pronoun of the second person joined to it; and which is an expletive,<\/em> having no use but to distinguish it from the meaning of an ordinance, or laying in order. Delgado. According to Frst the suff.<\/em> refers to the person valued. The LXX., Onk., Vulg. and Syr. omit the pronoun altogether.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:11<\/span>. . See Textual Note2 on Lev 2:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:12<\/span>. Valuation<\/em> is quite as good a translation of ; but as the A. V. has estimation<\/em> in all other places in this chapter, it should be retained here.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:2-3<\/span>; Lev 27:5-8<\/span>, etc.<\/em> The second in is formative of the noun, by reduplication of the third radical: it is not the pronominal suffix. Horsley. The Heb. subst. , estimation<\/em> or value,<\/em> is never found in Scripture, but with the pronoun of the second person joined to it; and which is an expletive,<\/em> having no use but to distinguish it from the meaning of an ordinance, or laying in order. Delgado. According to Frst the suff.<\/em> refers to the person valued. The LXX., Onk., Vulg. and Syr. omit the pronoun altogether.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:16<\/span>. = Possession<\/em> here means possession by inheritance,<\/em> and it is better to mark this in the translation as purchased fields (Lev 27:22<\/span>) come under another law.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:17<\/span>. A conjunction is here supplied by the Sam., 16 MSS., the LXX., Chald. and Syr.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26<\/span>. . See Textual Note 6 on Lev 12:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:27<\/span>; Lev 27:29<\/span>. = free or deliver.<\/em> It is a different word from the of the second clause of Lev 27:27<\/span> and of both clauses of Lev 27:20<\/span>, and should be differently translated.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

The question of the relation of this chapter to the rest of the book is partly a matter of form, and partly to be determined by the contents. As to the former, the preceding chapter of promises and warnings is an appropriate close of the legislation, and its last verse certainly has the air of the subscription to a finished work. The present chapter also closes with an abbreviated form of the same subscription. It may be compared to the close of John 20<\/span>, after which Leviticus 21<\/span> follows plainly as an addition. As to the subject matter: our chapter is very clearly distinguished from the rest of the book in that it treats of special voluntary consecrations to the Lord; and yet it is connected with the foregoing, in that these also are to be brought under the same general law of sacred fidelity. The chapter therefore constitutes precisely what is understood by an appendix<\/em>, appropriate to the book. Langes objection to this seems based upon a different idea of the word, and his arguments go to show only that it is appropriate. He says, 1. With our section corresponds Numbers 6<\/span>; Numbers 30<\/span>; Deu 23:21<\/span>; Jdg 11:35<\/span> [3440]; Ecc 5:5<\/span>. According to Keil this section should be an appendixcontrary to the declaration at the close of Lev 27:34<\/span>. He gives as his reason: The directions concerning vows follow the express termination of the Sinaitic law-giving (Lev 26:46<\/span>), as an appendix to it, because vows formed no integral part of the covenant laws, but were a freewill expression of piety common to almost all nations, and belonged to the modes of worship current in all religions, which were not demanded, and might be omitted altogether, and which really lay outside the law, though it was necessary to bring them into harmony with the demands of the law upon Israel. According to this apprehension, however, much of the Mosaic legislation must stand in an appendix; indeed, it may be said of the sacrifices, that they are the theocratic regulation of a primeval sacrificial custom, and not originally theocratically commanded. We accept then the view that the prescriptions of this section are attached to the foregoing chapter as a law of keeping the covenant in particulars, viz.<\/em> in relation to the pledged word, or as a law of particular and individual duties under the law of keeping the covenant as a whole. [We cannot see that this could be better defined than by the word Appendix.<\/em>F. G.] The superscription of this section Of vows is not truly congruous with the whole. The unity is: of special consecrations, or of the keeping holy of special covenant duties in relation to their remissibleness or their irremissibility, and indeed 1) of voluntary and remissible vows or consecrations, Lev 27:1-27<\/span>; Leviticus 2<\/span>) of the extraordinary, but commanded and irremissible consecration, or of the ban, Lev 27:28-29<\/span>; Leviticus 3<\/span>) of the consecrated holy first-fruits, or of the tithes, partly redeemable and partly unredeemable. Lev 27:30-33<\/span> (34).<\/p>\n

2. The religious fundamental thought of the section. Cursorily considered, it appears a kind of regulation for the remissible and irremissible special duties of the covenant, and in particular it assumes the external character of a tax; the ideal germ of the whole, however, is again the keeping holy of the personal life in relation to the personal Jehovah, the manliness of individual piety; one might say: the keeping pure of the religious vow, of the word given to God; the Divine ordinance of the ban; the holy fruit-tax which is appointed for the maintenance of the priests and Levites in the same way as the temple-tax for the support of the temple and the sacrifice
3. The vows. On the meaning and the nature itself, comp. the lexicons, especially both the articles in Herzogs Real-encyklopdie.<\/em> Writings on this subject of Weise and others. [See also the archologies, Art. vows<\/em> in Smiths Bib. Dict.,<\/em> and important observations scattered in Michaelis laws,<\/em> Art. 73, 83, 124, 145.F. G.]. We distinguish promissory vows and vows of renunciation,. so that it may be not without meaning that the vows are spoken of here, as efficient Levitical consecrations; the renunciations, or Nazarite vows, on the other hand, in the book of Numbers, the book of the social relations of the commonwealth. Samson was qualified as a Nazarite for a theocratico-political action; Pauls Nazarite vow also was devoted to ecclesiastical politics (Acts 21<\/span>); and James the Just had consecrated himself as a Nazarite to the deliverance of his nation. The religious vows, as such, form a parallel to the peace offerings and partly indeed were connected with them. The ethics of the Old Testament vows consists in this: first, that they are not commanded but voluntary, Deu 23:22-24<\/span> (consequently not the object of the medival so-called consilia evangelica<\/em>); and secondly, that as a pledged word they must be held inviolable (Pro 20:25<\/span>; Ecc 5:3<\/span>; Ecc 5:5<\/span>), yet not literally, since equivalents for their discharge were legally prescribed; thirdly, that the neglect of their fulfilment is to be expiated with a sin offering (Lev 5:4-6<\/span>). The vows were formal promises given to God for the benefit of the Sanctuary; they had for their object not only cattle, houses, and lands, but also persons, of course, dependent children and slaves. The examples of Jacob (Gen 35:14<\/span>) and others, show how significantly the vows of the Old Testament operated. The superstitious misinterpretation of the vow of Jephthah, according to the corrections of Hengstenberg, P. Cassel, and others previously, appears yet capable of being held tolerably righteous. It is indeed one of the exegetical prejudices in which, from different motives, literal orthodoxy and negative criticism come together. [The question of the actual sacrifice of Jephthahs daughter has always divided opinion in ancient as well as modern times. Jewish tradition is decided for the actual sacrifice as an unrighteous act. There are several reasons why it is not likely to have taken place: no priest could have been found to offer it; nor could it possibly have received the Divine acceptance; and it is contrary to the most probable interpretation of the closing verses of the story (Jdg 11:37-40<\/span>). Moreover it is unlikely that Jephthah would have committed such an act when he was not bound to it by his vow; the vow was an alternative one,that he would dedicate what met him to the Lord, or offer it as a sacrifice. That this is the true sense of and not and, as in the A. V., is plain, for even the most rash of men must have remembered the great improbability that the first thing he met on his return would be either one of the flock of the herd, or a pigeon, the only animals admissible in sacrifice. There is therefore in the execution of the vow of Jephthah no just ground for the absurd charge of the allowance of human sacrifices among the Israelites.F. G.]. There is no question that the vows, on account of their legal character, belong more to the Old than to the New Testament; although they still have their place in the New Testament time also, but certainly not in the sense of the medival, avaricious priesthood.<\/p>\n

The general principle on the subject of vows is clearly laid down in Deu 23:21-24<\/span> : they were not obligatory, and no sin was incurred by not making them; but once made they were to be conscientiously kept, and their neglect (Lev 5:4-6<\/span>) required the expiation of the sin offering. It appears from this chapter that nothing could be made the subject of a vow which was already marked out by the law as belonging to God; but anything else might be, and having been vowed, might be redeemed, with the exception of the sacrificial animals, and except also things or persons devoted,<\/strong> Lev 27:28-29<\/span>. The subject of this chapter is the ordinary vow, and has no reference to the vow of the Nazarite, Num 6:1-21<\/span>. The exceptional conditions under which the vow was not binding are detailed in Numbers 30<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-25<\/span>. regulate the commutation of vows; Lev 27:28-29<\/span> declare the incommutability of things devoted; Lev 27:30-33<\/span> declare what tithes and under what conditions may be commuted: while Lev 27:34<\/span> closes the whole. Under the first head, Lev 27:2-8<\/span> relate to the commutation of persons; 913, of cattle; 14, 15, of houses; 1625, of land.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:2-8<\/span>. Lange: According to Knobel the consecration of persons means that one allots himself, or another of whom he has the disposal, to the service of the Sanctuary. He cites as examples the consecration of Samuel, the Gibeonites, the augmentation of the temple slaves by David and Solomon, Ezr 2:58<\/span>; Ezr 8:20<\/span>; Neh 7:60<\/span>; Neh 11:3<\/span> (p. 583). Keil, on the other hand, asserts that in every vow of a person redemption must take place according to the value, with reference to the Mishna (see p. 179), [Trans, p. 480 and note. Keil also cites Saalschutz, and thinks Oehler wrong in referring to 1Sa 2:11<\/span>; 1Sa 2:22; 1Sa 2:28<\/span>, in proof of the opposite view.F. G.]. But the appointed valuation little accords with this. It is inconceivable why in this case old men and old women should have been redeemed at a smaller cost than men and women in their vigor. Keil himself makes prominent that the valuation was conformed to the vitality and skill. Besides the diversity of the valuation, it was entrusted to the priest to value a poor man less, from which it does not follow that he must<\/em> be redeemed, but only that he might<\/em> be. The fact that children under five years of age could not be consecrated, points also to the ability to serve. In regard to the difference of valuation, Langes argument does not seem to be a determining one; on either theory the valuation would naturally be based upon what might be called the actual worth<\/em> of the person; but there would be no object in a valuation at all except for the purpose of redemption, and it is expressly provided that all persons who had been vowed must be valued. The diminished valuation of a poor man was a merciful provision analogous to the alternate sin offering in case of poverty. Notwithstanding Langes view, it seems to point very strongly to the universality of redemption; otherwise there would be no reason why the poor man should not have worked out his vow, or why he should have been redeemed at a lower rate than others whose services were of the same intrinsic value. In saying that children under five years could not be consecrated, Lange must have overlooked Lev 27:6<\/span>, which expressly provides a valuation for those vowed from one month to five years. The form of expression in Lev 27:2<\/span>, moreover, seems to contemplate redemption in all cases of personal vows. The objection to this view is that a personal vow thereby becomes only a roundabout and awkward way of consecrating the amount of the redemption money to the Lord; but the moral effect appears to have been different, and with the personal vow there is to be supposed a sense of spiritual consecration to God which was not removed by the payment of the redemption. Kalisch speaks very strongly: To our author vowing a person to God meant neither offering him up as a sacrifice, nor dedicating him to the service of the temple, and much less selling him as a slave, but simply redeeming him by money in favor of the sacred treasury; so foreign were the two former alternatives to his mind, that he utterly ignored them, and stated the third as a matter of course, and the only one to be considered.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:9-13<\/span>. Vows of animals. The right of redemption in this case depended upon the nature of the animal; if it was one suitable for sacrifice (Lev 27:9-10<\/span>), after being once vowed, it could not be redeemed or exchanged, and the result of an attempt at exchange was that both animals should belong to the Lord. It does not follow that the animals were to be immediately sacrificed, but they may have been put into the herd from which the public sacrifices were taken. The case of animals of the sacrificial kinds, with blemishes which unfitted them for the altar, is not especially mentioned; but after the analogy of Lev 27:33<\/span>, these probably went to the support of the priests. If, on the other hand, the animal was unclean (Lev 27:11-13<\/span>), it must be valued by the priest; then it might be redeemed by adding one-fifth to its value, or else it belonged to the sanctuary. Keil thinks it was then sold for the benefit of the sanctuary; but in this case the original owner would have had no occasion to redeem it at a higher price since he could have bought it at its estimated value. It is more likely therefore that such animals were retained, at least for a time, for the use of the priests and Levites. Keil considers that the Heb. . means between good and bad, i.e.<\/em>, neither very high as if it were very good, nor very low as if it were bad, but at a medium price. The A. V., however, is in accordance with the ancient versions, and is sustained by Gesenius.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:14-15<\/span>. The law for houses is the same as for unclean animals. It relates probably only to houses in the cities, as those in the country would come under the following law for land.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:16-24<\/span>. Lange: Lands, a. Inheritances. If they were not redeemed they lapsed in the year of Jubilee to the Sanctuary. If they were redeemed, the price was determined partly according to the money value of the seed for the land, partly according to the number of sowings or seed years to the Jubilee year, and a fifth part of the amount must be added besides. These ordinances applied also to the purchaser (the under tenant). A field was taken for the measure of valuation which yielded until the year of Jubilee one Homer (225 pounds, or two bushels of seed). [The expression (Lev 27:16<\/span>) according to the seed thereof<\/strong> is generally understood to mean, according to the seed required to sow it; but the difference is immaterial; it is merely an expression of the measure of valuation, and the proportion will remain the same whatever it be. The value of the homer of barley, however (estimated by Thenius at 225 pounds), is so great, amounting probably to about twenty-seven dollars, that it is necessary to understand it, as Lange has done, not of the single homer, but of a homer<\/em> annually during the forty-two years (omitting the seven Sabbatical years) intervening between two Jubilee years. This would make the money value of the single homer of barley about 64 cts.; but it is to be remembered that en the average it was to be paid many years in advance, so that we cannot estimate from this the actual price of the barley. Others however (as Clarke and Keil) think it was an annual payment as it accrued. The meaning of the expression, Lev 27:20<\/span>, if he have sold the field to another man<\/strong> is uncertain. According to Knobel it means if he has fraudulently sold the field to another, and taken the price to himself, after having vowed it to the sanctuary. In this case the confiscation of the field to the Lord would be the penalty upon his trickery and deceit. Keil rejects this view, and supposes that the owner continued to cultivate the land himself, paying a yearly rent to the sanctuary; in such a case the basis of sale would be the possible surplus of the produce above the yearly rental, and the fault of the seller consisted simply in the fact that he had looked upon the land which he vowed to the Lord as though it were his own property, still and entirely at his own disposal, and therefore had allowed himself to violate the rights of the Lord by the sale of his land. Wordsworth, following Jarchi, suggests another interpretation; that the pronoun he<\/em> is used impersonally, and the expression means, if the field had been sold by the treasurer for the benefit of the sanctuary. The object would then be to make the title given by the sanctuary in all cases perfect. A simpler explanation is to understand have sold<\/strong> in a pluperfect sense = had soldviz.<\/em>: before making his vow. In this case he would have no claim upon it until after the Jubilee (except by redemption), and therefore his vow could only be accomplished by the land falling to the sanctuary at the Jubilee. The reason for the same result in case of refusal to redeem is apparently based upon the persistent wish of the owner. He might redeem at any time up to the Jubilee; and if he did not, he showed that he wished absolutely to give the field to the Lord. It does not appear that the landed possessions of the sanctuary ever grew large in this way.F. G.]. b.<\/em> Purchased possessions. Since these must fall back in the Jubilee year to the heir, they could only become the subject of vows in a very limited sense. The vow of a purchased field required<\/em>(Lev 27:23<\/span>) the immediate payment of its full value (without addition) to the year of Jubilee. In this case the actual occupation and usufruct of the land undoubtedly remained with the one who had made the vow, subject to the ordinary law of redemption (Lev 25:23-28<\/span>). The requirement here of immediate payment does not imply that in the former case (Lev 27:19<\/span>) the payment was annual (so Keil, Clark, and others), but only that here the money must be immediately paid down as the only security for its payment at all.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:25<\/span> simply provides that the standard of all valuations must be the shekel of the sanctuary<\/strong> a silver coin estimated at 54 cents. It was divided into 20 gerahs of 2.7 cts. each. The LXX. uses the word , which is employed in Mat 17:24<\/span> for the half<\/em>-shekel, the Alexandrian being double the Attic.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26-27<\/span>. The positive law concerning vows is now completed. It remains to treat negatively of certain things which were not allowed to become the subject of vows. First, all the first-born of animals are excluded as already belonging to the Lord, and therefore incapable of being given to Him either by vow or in any other way: no man shall sanctify it.<\/strong> A firstling of an unclean beast,<\/strong> however, might be redeemed by adding a fifth to its valuationotherwise it was to be sold for the benefit of the sanctuary. The reason for its peremptory sale in this case, instead of its retention for use, was doubtless the tender age of the firstlings, so that if they were retained they must have occupied much time and care. Lange: Keil remarks By this regulation the earlier law, which commanded that an ass should either be redeemed with a sheep or else be put to death (Exo 13:13<\/span>; Exo 34:20<\/span>) was modified in favor of the revenues of the sanctuary and its servants. Comp. Winer,etc.<\/em> We cannot consider this correct. Concerning the first-born of an unclean beast, the law was peremptory. And how should the law-giver here come back once more to the unclean beast? Nevertheless, a special ordinance concerning the first-born might certainly be met with which had dropped out through a defect under the law of unclean animals. Keil, Clark and others must have overlooked the fact that the law of Exodus is only a special law concerning the ass,<\/em> but making no mention of other unclean animals; while here the law is a general one which, as often in general laws, does not mention the already known and established exception. It had been but a year since the law for the ass was first given in Exodus, and less than this since its repetition in Exo 34:20<\/span>. The time is too short, therefore, for the reason given by Keil and Clark for its modification.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:28-29<\/span>. From redeemable vows is also to be excepted every devoted thing,<\/strong> whether of man, or beast, or land. This is the first instance of the use of the word , and it occurs afterwards in the law but seldom (Num 18:14<\/span>; Deu 7:26<\/span>, bis<\/em>; Lev 13:17<\/span>). It is introduced as a term already familiar. It is translated by various words in the A. V. (as curse, accursed, dedicated, devoted, appointed to utter destruction, etc.<\/em>), but etymologically and by usage always means irrevocably cut off from all common usein the case of persons, devoted to destructionin the case of things entirely surrendered to the Lord to be disposed of at His will. What was devoted could never be offered in sacrifice; but in all places where mention is elsewhere made of the ban laid on any thing (Num 18:14<\/span>; Numbers 31<\/span>; Deu 2:34<\/span>; Deu 13:12-18<\/span>; Deu 25:19<\/span>; Jos 6:17-19<\/span>; Mal 4:6<\/span>) this appears as a dedication to destruction, as a fulfilling of the Divine vengeance, as an honoring of God on<\/em> those in<\/em> whom He cannot show Himself holy and glorious. Von Gerlach. In regard to inanimate objects the meaning is therefore clear enough; but the expression which shall be devoted of men<\/strong> (Lev 27:29<\/span>) has been the occasion of some difficulty. This much is certainly plain: that the sentence of cherem<\/em> once pronounced was absolutely irrevocable, and in 1Sa 15:21<\/span>; 1Sa 15:33<\/span>, we have an instance of the prophets indignant rebuke of the attempt to set it aside. Beyond this, the only instances of the cherem<\/em> in Scripture are those which rested upon an express Divine command. Jephthahs vow does not come under this category at all, for that was a vow either to offer a burnt offering, or to devote to the Lord; but the cherem<\/em> is not treated as a vow at all, and is separated from ordinary vows by being irredeemable. The general sense of the passage, historically interpreted, is therefore that man may not interfere to thwart the purpose of the Almighty: Jehovahs sentence of destruction must always be unflinchingly carried out. Lev 27:28<\/span>, however, clearly asserts that an individual man might devote<\/strong> persons belonging to him in the same way that he could his animals or fields, while Lev 27:29<\/span> requires that any one so devoted must be put to death. The meaning of this very mysterious provision must be gathered from the historical instances of the cherem<\/em>. It could have applied only to the devoting of those who were already manifestly under the ban of Jehovahthose guilty of such outrageous and flagrant violation of the fundamental law of the covenant that they manifestly came under the penalty of death. Such persons, instead of being tried and condemned, might be at once devoted<\/strong> and put to death. Langes exegesis is as follows: That which had been placed under the ban<\/em> was absolutely irredeemable. No object was banned, however, or consecrated to Jehovah by an irrevocable reversion (for the use of the Sanctuary in the case of impersonal things, or for death instead of capital punishment in the case of persons) through any private will; only Jehovah, or the community in His service, executed the ban. The various particulars of the ban are explained by Knobel, p. 588. See also Selden de Jure Gent<\/em>. IV., vi.xi.; Waterland Scripture vindicated,<\/em> Works IV., p. 226229.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:30-33<\/span>. Tithes also are to be excluded from the possible subjects of vows, since they already belonged to the Lord; in certain cases, however, they might be redeemed like vows. The tithe, like the thing devoted, is referred to as something already familiar. From Abrahams tithe to Melchizedec (Gen 14:20<\/span>) and Jacobs vow (Gen 28:22<\/span>), and probably from still far earlier times, it had been immemorially an essential part of the worship of God. The tithe is here spoken of, therefore, not for the purpose of enjoining it, but to exclude it from vows, and to prescribe how far and under what conditions, like vows, it might be redeemed. In Num 18:20-32<\/span>; Deu 12:6<\/span>; Deu 12:11<\/span>; Deu 14:22<\/span>, directions are given as to the use and the collection of the tithes. According to Rabbinical tradition, the animals to be tithed were enclosed in a pen, and as they went out, one by one at the opening, every tenth animal was touched with a rod dipped in vermilion. Comp. Jer 33:13<\/span>; Eze 20:37<\/span>. Clark. The tithe was applied, of course, only to the increase<\/em> of the flock and the herd, i.e.<\/em>, to animals which had never been tithed before. Lange: It must not be overlooked that the tithes were a ground-rent in favor of the hierarchy, primarily of the Levites, who again must themselves pay tithes to the priest; and were also a perpetual theocratic civil tax which could not properly be maintained in Christian times by the side of other taxes, notwithstanding the strong Old Testament disposition of the middle ages in this matter. It is easy to see that at the present day, by the side of the modern forms of voluntary and involuntary taxes, ecclesiastical and secular, tithes can only be claimed by an overstrained literal zeal. The law (32, 33) absolutely forbade the redemption or exchange of the tithe of sacrificial animals, as in case of a vow; other tithes were also under the same law as the vow, and might be redeemed by the payment of their value with one-fifth in addition.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:34<\/span> closes this appendix, and forms, as it were, a second close to the whole book of Leviticus, the aim and object of which has been holiness<\/em>holiness to be typically acquired by the sacrificial system prescribed to point to the Lord our righteousness; and to be preserved by those many legal enactments superadded to the great law of faith, because of transgressions, until the promised seed should come.<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. In the law for the redemption of personal vows is again brought out very strongly the equality of all men before God. Differences were made according to sex and age, but none according to social position and rank. The redemption for the high-priest himself was precisely the same as for the day-laborer.
II. In the prohibition of vows of the first-born, of tithes, etc.,<\/em> which already belonged to the Lord, the general principle is taught that man may not make that a matter of extraordinary piety which already forms a part of his ordinary duty. In a sense this would absolutely exclude all vows, since the Christian requirement is that we should devote ourselves with all that we have to Him who gave Himself for us, and indeed the highest standard of the Christian life, making of that life itself one perpetual vow, necessarily supercedes all minor vows; but nevertheless practically, special dedications of ourselves and ours may be made, and when made are to be sacredly kept. See Ecc 5:4-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n

III. Here as elsewhere Moses is made only the channel and instrument by whom the laws are given; their authorship is expressly referred to the Lord Himself. Accepting this as a truth, the wonderful character of this legislation occasions no difficulty; but if with the negative critics, it be denied and the legislation be referred to human authorship, we have in this book the impossible phenomenon of a legislation wholly occupied with the promotion of holiness, and yet stamped with fraud and deliberate forgery upon its very front. We have also a legislation far superior to that of any nation of antiquity, and indeed morally superior to any that has ever existed except under the influence of Christianity, proceeding from a people whose history shows them to have been unfitted for the conception, much more the enactment of even a very inferior code.<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lange: The religious observance of vows. Before all things man must not be willing to cheat Jehovah; also he must be thoroughly honest and true in his vows, his professions, his fasts, his devotion, and his religious duties generally.
Also under exegetical: The importance of these prescriptions is that they oppose all unmanliness in relation to a pledged word, confirmation vows, marriage vows, ordination vows, false discharge of fasting that has been vowed by fish-eating and the like; the removal of all evasions of criminal justice and of churchly discipline, and finally, of all frauds in regard to the duties which one owes to the cultus and to the religious rights of the community. The ordinance concerning the irremissibility of various actions shows clearly that there can be a true freedom within this obligation. The sanctification of manlinessthus might the whole section be entitled.
Also under the same: It is an old story that worldliness, cunning, and impiety, very willingly put obstructions in the way of religious, theocratic, and ecclesiastical discharge of duty, and the complaints of the Old Testament of the want of manliness in this matter, which was connected with dimness of faith in the Omniscient, have been continually repeated even to the present. But here Jehovah, who deals faithfully and reliably with His holy people, approaches with the demand in regard to them, that they should hold themselves holy, and faithful, and trustworthy in all their business in regard to Him. If moral laxity begins first in concealments in relation to God and His institutions, it will diffuse itself more widely until it completes its process of dissolution in religious and moral deceptions, especially in the province of all religious and moral vows.<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span>Lev 27:2<\/span>. does not mean to dedicate or set apart a vow, but to make a special vow. Keil.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span>Lev 27:2-3<\/span>; Lev 27:5-8<\/span>, etc.<\/em> The second in is formative of the noun, by reduplication of the third radical: it is not the pronominal suffix. Horsley. The Heb. subst. , estimation<\/em> or value,<\/em> is never found in Scripture, but with the pronoun of the second person joined to it; and which is an expletive,<\/em> having no use but to distinguish it from the meaning of an ordinance, or laying in order. Delgado. According to Frst the suff.<\/em> refers to the person valued. The LXX., Onk., Vulg. and Syr. omit the pronoun altogether.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span>Lev 27:11<\/span>. . See Textual Note2 on Lev 2:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span>Lev 27:12<\/span>. Valuation<\/em> is quite as good a translation of ; but as the A. V. has estimation<\/em> in all other places in this chapter, it should be retained here.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span>Lev 27:2-3<\/span>; Lev 27:5-8<\/span>, etc.<\/em> The second in is formative of the noun, by reduplication of the third radical: it is not the pronominal suffix. Horsley. The Heb. subst. , estimation<\/em> or value,<\/em> is never found in Scripture, but with the pronoun of the second person joined to it; and which is an expletive,<\/em> having no use but to distinguish it from the meaning of an ordinance, or laying in order. Delgado. According to Frst the suff.<\/em> refers to the person valued. The LXX., Onk., Vulg. and Syr. omit the pronoun altogether.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span>Lev 27:16<\/span>. = Possession<\/em> here means possession by inheritance,<\/em> and it is better to mark this in the translation as purchased fields (Lev 27:22<\/span>) come under another law.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span>Lev 27:17<\/span>. A conjunction is here supplied by the Sam., 16 MSS., the LXX., Chald. and Syr.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span>Lev 27:26<\/span>. . See Textual Note 6 on Lev 12:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/span>Lev 27:27<\/span>; Lev 27:29<\/span>. = free or deliver.<\/em> It is a different word from the of the second clause of Lev 27:27<\/span> and of both clauses of Lev 27:20<\/span>, and should be differently translated.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CONTENTS<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This chapter seems to be added by way of appendix to the whole Book of Leviticus. For the preceding chapter summed up what had been enjoined in speaking of the rewards to the observance, and the penalties of punishments, to the neglect of the whole law. This chapter, however, is subjoined, and relates to the subject of vows, and the method to be observed, where the person vowing desires to redeem it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-2<\/span> Is there not somewhat in this subject of self-dedication to the LORD, which is designed to shadow forth him, who dedicated himself a voluntary self-devoted sacrifice for the deliverance of his people? Blessed JESUS! in all things it behoved thee to have the pre-eminence! Col 1:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XII<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

REGULATION OF VOLUNTARY VOWS<\/p>\n

Lev 27<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The theme is the Regulation of Voluntary Vows, not the prescription of vows, but the regulation of them.<\/p>\n

1. Of what does this chapter consist?<\/p>\n

Ans. It is really a treatise on persons, animals, houses, and lands vowed to God, and the commutation of these vows. You know that the word “commutation” means, if you vow a certain house, you may substitute for that house a valuation that the priest will put upon it. That is a commutation of the vow, or taking an equivalent in the place of the vow. So that it consists of a treatise of persons, animals, houses) and lands vowed to God and the commutation of them.<\/p>\n

2. Did Mosaic legislation institute or prescribe these vows?<\/p>\n

Ans. No; it merely regulated a prevailing custom of making vows long anterior to Moses.<\/p>\n

3. Cite the more important scriptures touching the vows.<\/p>\n

Ans. You had better read them: Deu 23:21-22<\/span> , reads as follows: “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not be slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.” Now this is an exceedingly important scripture. It says not to vow these voluntary things and break the vow, but if you do vow it, then it will be a sin if you don’t do it, except under regulations prescribed here and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

Num 30:2<\/span> , reads: “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, of swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Now I quote a passage for every preacher to preach a sermon on: “Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God; and be more ready to hear than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil. Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter anything before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.” (Now cornea the particular part) “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error.”<\/p>\n

Now if you were in my position and knew my experience, you would recognize the importance of that. For many years, ever since I was a young man, (I have raised over a million dollars in that time) many of the brethren have been exceedingly “promising” but that is all. I could call the names of some preachers that at every association and every convention make conspicuous big pledges, and never under any circumstances even write me a letter in reply to the notices when I write them. So that just as soon as I get pledges from these people, I turn them over and write on the back of them “Nix”; that is a German word meaning “nothing,” or the Latin phrase, vox et preterea nibit,<\/em> translated “a voice and nothing else.”<\/p>\n

It is undoubtedly true that preachers are so zealous and earnest to help (for they realize better than anybody else the need of the work), that they can’t help pledging some to everything, that is, their good nature and the interest in the work makes them feel it their duty to give, but there are good ones that modify the pledges for good reasons. The reason that I ask the preachers to preach on this is not to stop the pledging, for the work couldn’t go on without it, but to create a conscience on this. Now you must consider the third verse, that it is no sin to forbear to vow, but if you do vow, stand up to your word, as another scripture puts it, “Blessed is the man that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not.” I know some preachers that have sacrificed till it hurt, to faithfully redeem what they pledged.<\/p>\n

4. Cite notable instances of biblical vows.<\/p>\n

Ans. We will take them up in order.<\/p>\n

(1) The vow that Jacob made, recorded in Gen 28:20-22<\/span> . When he waked up and thought of what he had dreamed, he was profoundly impressed and he made this vow, “If the Lord will be my God and keep me in the way that I should go, then this stone that I put up will be a memorial that I will build a house of the Lord when I return, and that I will give to him one tenth of all that I receive.” Now that was his vow. I am much inclined to think that he kept the financial part of it, that he did honor God with his substance from that time on, but that he deferred to pay a part of the vow when he returned he would erect an altar to God at that place. He seemed to forget, or seemed not to count it an important thing. He had asked God to bless him and to keep him and he vowed that when he went back to that country he would erect an altar on that stone. He went to another place, and then another, and great distress came on him. And God speaks to him and says, “You move to Bethel and erect that altar.” That shows that God blessed him in the part that he performed and suffered him to be punished, not for the part he did perform, but for the part he did not perform.<\/p>\n

(2) The next notable case is the history of Jephthah’s vow. Jephthah was going out under hard conditions to fight a battle, and he vowed that if God would give him victory over his enemies, when he returned he would offer as a burnt offering the first thing that met him; and the first thing that he met was his daughter, the apple of his eye. She met him with rejoicing, giving him a glorious welcome, with songs, that God had brought him safely home and victorious. Now the Scripture says that he did unto her according to his vow; that is usually called “Jephthah’s rash vow,” and the merits of the case will be considered under a different head. I am just giving you examples, good and bad.<\/p>\n

(3) The next notable case is the case of Hannah. She had no children. Every Hebrew woman that was married, desired children, as a blessing from God. She was scorned by other women because she had no children. And she went where Eli had the tabernacle, and while praying she made this vow to God, that if he would give her a son, she would give the whole life of that son to the service of God, and God gave her Samuel, and she did give Samuel to the service of God, and he was the most illustrious man of his age.<\/p>\n

(4) Another remarkable case is the case of Saul; that you will find in 1Sa 14<\/span> . In the heat of battle, while the enemy was giving way and Saul and his men were in vigorous pursuit, he vowed that he would put to death any man that tasted food until the enemy was routed. His own son, Jonathan, one of the noblest young men, didn’t hear his father make that vow, and he was always at the front and he saw a honeycomb, and then touched it to his lips to refresh himself. It was told to Saul and he would have killed his own son, but the people rose up en masse and said, “Jonathan shall not die,” and Saul’s plan was thwarted.<\/p>\n

(5) The next case that I cite is the case of Herod, mentioned in Mat 14:9<\/span> . Herod was so charmed with the dancing girl, the daughter of his wife, not his own child, however, that he promised to give her anything she would ask for, and she asked, as her mother desired her to do, for the head of John the Baptist. Herod was exceedingly sorry, for his oath’s sake, he complied with his vow, and the girl took the head of John the Baptist on a dish to her mother, and Josephus says that she took a bodkin and kept thrusting is through the tongue of John the Baptist and saying, “You will never get to say again that we are living in sin.”<\/p>\n

(6) I mention another vow. Forty Jews entered into a vow that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed the apostle Paul. That was frustrated by Paul’s nephew and the courage of the captain of the Roman troops. Now, I have cited a few vows, some of them praiseworthy, some of them rash and some of them horrible.<\/p>\n

5. In regulating these vows what is prohibited in this chapter 27?<\/p>\n

(1) Vowing without capacity to vow for instance, a girl making a vow when she is subject to her father’s authority. That vow is not considered binding on the girl if her father forbids it. She is held as not guilty of sin because she has not become of legal age. In the same way, the vow of a wife, unless she has her husband’s consent. If her husband refuses his permission and she then didn’t fulfil it, she stood not guilty before God.<\/p>\n

(2) Vowing things that are already God’s. Now suppose you vowed the first-born, that is God’s already. Suppose you vow tithes. Tithes are already the Lord’s. You have not the right and it is prohibited here to make a vow touching a thing which is really not yours; it is already the Lord’s.<\/p>\n

(3) The third thing prohibited is, making a vow that in its fulfilment will violate a law of God. These vows are voluntary, but God has never left it to our will to violate his law, and Jephthah ought to have had sense enough to have seen that he should not offer his daughter, because the law prohibited it and that it would violate God’s law. So in the case of Herod. What if he did agree to give even to the half of his kingdom, he did not mean to agree to take human life. It was a sin against God to kill John the Baptist, and he ought to have said, “No oath shall bind me to take human life. I said I would give you to the half of my kingdom, but I did not say that I would make myself a criminal in the sight of God.” A notable case of this our Saviour refers to when he sees the Pharisees dodging the law by misuse of vows and thereby refusing to take care of their parents. He says, “The law of God says, Thou shall honour thy father and mother,” and a child can’t get from under that law. Paul repeats the law in one of his letters that any child born is under obligations to take care of his old father and mother when they are helpless. They said, “It is Corban,” that is, “it is devoted to God, and on account of that I cannot help my old father and mother.” That is a fine illustration that no one is authorized to either make or keep a vow that will violate the plain law of God.<\/p>\n

6. What is the chief object of this lesson?<\/p>\n

Ans. The chief object of this lesson is that when people in gratitude for past favors, or in expectation of future favors, make a vow unto the Lord, an equitable commutation may be made, and this chapter, without my going into the details of its exegesis, shows that if one vowed a person, like Hannah did she vowed the person of her son or if he vowed a house, or land, or anything of that kind, that, if he came to the high priest at the door of the sanctuary, a commutation might be made for that vow. What equity would demand for that vow was prescribed so that the law was very merciful in a case of a poor man. If he had made a vow that he was not able to fulfil, then the law was equitable in a case of that kind.<\/p>\n

7. What observations on Ecc 5<\/span> ?<\/p>\n

Ans. See answer to question 3.<\/p>\n

8. What observation on the history of vows in the Christian era?<\/p>\n

Ans. Well, if I were to write many books on this subject I could not tell you of the extravagance of the vows that have been made in the name of the Christian religion. Of all the foolishness of people that ever attached themselves to the Christian religion, extravagant vows head the list. The whole nunnery system arises out of that. A notable instance was related in the papers some time ago. A very wealthy woman, a Romanist, made a vow of an immense fortune to the Roman Church, and went to Rome, expecting to see an angel in the Papal chair, or something like that, and expecting further that she would realize her fondest hopes for her religion when she got there. But when she got there she saw such horrible things that she revoked her vow, and I think she was justified. That vow was made to God, but when she saw that, in her honest judgment, it would not be to God, she revoked that vow. The history of chivalry and of romance is filled with vows. For instance, a knight, before going into battle, would make a vow that if he came out all right in the battle, he would wear a patch over his right eye. It was no uncommon thing to see them disfigured this way in their bodies. Often when they were in a city, they would make a vow that they would blow the city up and themselves in it if certain things were done. Some of you have read the romance called The White Company.<\/p>\n

9. What literature on this subject can be recommended?<\/p>\n

Ans. Dr. Sanderson delivered seven lectures at Oxford in Latin on this whole subject. The book is a classic. Charles I, the king of England, was so impressed with these discourses that he ordered them to be translated so that everybody could read them in English. That is about the best thing I know.<\/p>\n

10. When is a vow not binding?<\/p>\n

Ans. When the performance of it would be a greater sin than its nonobservance: for instance, cutting off the head of John the Baptist. A breach of that vow would have been more honorable than its performance.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Lev 27:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,<\/p>\n

Ver. 1. And the Lord spake.<\/strong> ] This is oft premised and prefaced for authority’s sake, and that we may learn to resolve all divine doctrines into Deus dixit.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Leviticus Chapter 27<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

CHAPTER 17<\/p>\n

PERSONAL VOWS<\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-8<\/span><\/p>\n

These were special acts of devotedness to Jehovah through the priest, but according to his valuation who was king in Jeshurun and thus type of Messiah.<\/p>\n

The chapter is a remarkable example of that divine inspiration, which underlies Scripture for the profit of faith, but above the ken of the wise and prudent who dare to judge God’s word under the plea of historical and literary investigation, totally blind to their guilty unbelief and profanity. But the single-eyed believer delights to observe that Lev 25<\/span> looks on to the true and full day of Jubilee when Jehovah will make good His rights over the land on behalf of His people its failing tenants. Then Lev 26<\/span> sets out the sad ruin of His guilty people under the first covenant because of their disobedience and apostasy; but also restoring mercy under the second when they accept the punishment of their iniquity, and He remembers His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the land. Lastly comes this appendix of special or voluntary vows which turns on His absolute title when all on man’s part had failed, and He acts through Him who shall there build the temple of Jehovah, bear the glory, and sit and rule upon His throne; when He shall be a priest upon His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between Them both (Zec 6:13<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

The vows here brought together consist, first of persons, male or female; secondly of beasts so devoted; thirdly of house or field, and this brings in the Jubilee, and proves the chapter to be in its precisely right and necessary place. The rest of the chapter states the distinction between persons or things thus devoted from those that were simply sanctified, with certain exceptions already established by His law. These verses 1-8 deal only with the persons.<\/p>\n

” 1 And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, 2 Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, When a man devoteth by a vow, the persons [shall be] for Jehovah by thy valuation. 3 And thy valuation shall be of the male from twenty years old even to sixty years old: even thy valuation shall be sixty shekels of silver after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 And if for a female, then thy valuation shall be thirty shekels. 5 And if from five years old even to twenty years old, then thy valuation of the male shall be twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. 6 And if from a month old even to five years old, then thy valuation of the male shall be five shekels of silver, and for the female thy valuation [shall be] three shekels of silver. 7 And if from sixty years old and above, if a male, then thy valuation shall be fifteen shekels; and for the female ten shekels. 8 And if he be poorer than thy valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his means that vowed shall the priest value him” (vers. 1-8).<\/p>\n

Jehovah would have seriousness in His people in making a vow. There was no demand on His part in this case, as in the firstlings of man and beast, etc. There was a whole tribe, the sons of Levi, already consecrated to the religious service of Jehovah; but He accepted the desire of any individual for devotedness to Himself, and laid down directions for Moses to value them on a certain scale of valuation, which varied according to their age and sex (vers. 1, 2).<\/p>\n

The first estimate took account of the time when service was most prized from twenty years to sixty years old, the male at fifty shekels of silver, the female at thirty. This would mean of our money (say) six pounds five shillings, and three pounds fifteen shillings respectively (vers. 3, 4).<\/p>\n

The next estimation for each is from five years of age to twenty, and is rated at twenty shekels for the male, and ten far the female, or two pounds ten shillings, and one pound five shillings (ver. 5).<\/p>\n

Then the extreme point for males and females from a month to five years has the valuation of five shekels for the one, and three for the other, or twelve shillings and sixpence, and seven shillings and sixpence (ver. 6).<\/p>\n

Next for the oldest class, from sixty years and above, for the male fifteen shekels or one pound seventeen shillings, and the female ten shekels or one pound five shillings (ver. 7). There the scale for the aged female rose nearest to the male, where man might be disposed to despise.<\/p>\n

As Jehovah did not require these vows, He did not make them irrevocable. The persons thus devoted might be redeemed; and the foregoing scale of valuation was therefore provided. The use to be made of the redemption price is referred to in 2Ki 12<\/span> as “the money of the persons for whom each man is rated.” This, with other contributions fixed or voluntary there stated, the priests were to take in the days of the temple for repairing the breaches of the house wheresoever any breach was found.<\/p>\n

But in its considerate equity there was another provision given in ver. 8, “And if he be poorer than thy valuation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his means that vowed shall the priest value him.” It was due to Jehovah that something should be paid, that the exemption from his obligation might not be a light thing, or God mocked by heedlessness. Yet there must be no harshness; only gracious care that the debt to God might not oppress the poorest of His people.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 18.<\/p>\n

BEASTS OR HOUSE DEVOTED<\/p>\n

Lev 27:9-15<\/span><\/p>\n

But things also animate or inanimate might be set apart to Jehovah, as here we have animals and a house.<\/p>\n

” 9 And if [it be] a beast of which men offer an offering to Jehovah, all that they give of such to Jehovah shall be holy. 10 They shall not alter it nor change it, a good for a bad nor a bad for a good; and if he at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy. 11 And if any unclean beast, of which they do not offer an offering to Jehovah, then he shall present the beast before the priest; 12 and the priest shall value it, between good and bad: according to thy valuation, O priest, so shall it be. 13 And if they will in any wise redeem it, then they shall add a fifth thereof according to thy valuation.<\/p>\n

” 14 And when anyone halloweth his house, that it may be holy to Jehovah, the priest shall value it, between good and bad: as the priest shall value it, so shall it stand. 15 And if he that halloweth it will redeem his house, he shall add the fifth of the money of thy valuation to it, and it shall be his” (vers. 9-15).<\/p>\n

A necessary difference at once appears between beasts clean or unclean, as there was no question of the firstborn of man and of cattle already claimed from the sons of Israel as Jehovah’s (Exo 13:2<\/span> ), at least the males (12, 13). The firstling of an ass if not ransomed with a lamb must have its neck broken; as the firstborn of man among their sons with a price. For the firstborn of Israel the tribe of Levi was substituted as we know from Num 3<\/span> ; but as its number did not suffice to represent all the firstborn, the rest who were over and above those ransomed by the Levites were redeemed by the ransom-money of five shekels apiece according to the shekel of the sanctuary. Thus in every way Jehovah associated with Himself His people so liable to forget their high relations, grounded on different figures of redemption.<\/p>\n

The first principle laid down impressed on the Israelite that if he gave to Jehovah a clean beast, one presentable for sacrifice, it was to be thenceforward “holy” (9). It could not be bought back. Even if defective or bad in any way, he could not alter, nor change it for an unblemished beast, neither good for bad nor bad for good. All this should have been weighed before offering it; and if the offerer altered his mind, he must learn that God did not. If it was real concern for Jehovah’s honour, he might bring another good beast; but the original animal and the exchange must remain holy to Jehovah (10).<\/p>\n

There was more allowance where there was no such close link with Jehovah as with animals fit for sacrifice to Him. If an unclean beast were presented, he should present it to the priest, and the priest should value it whether it be good or bad; and as he valued it, so should it be. If one wished to recall the unclean beast, it was open to him with a fifth added to the estimation, as a trespass or forfeit, because of his lack of due gravity in what was thus connected with Jehovah (11-13).<\/p>\n

It is substantially the same with the latter case, where one hallowed his house to Jehovah. The priest valued it good or bad; and at his valuation, so it was to stand. But if the Israelite did not stand to his purpose and wished to redeem, Jehovah made no difficulty, but impressed a reproof on his fickleness by requiring a fifth over its estimated value; and thus he might have his house back.<\/p>\n

We see the same guard against second thoughts in the book of Psalms, though in a more general form and the converse too, where there was no such devotion to Jehovah. It is part of what is shown to please Jehovah and suits the hill of His holiness, that if a man have sworn to his own hurt, he does not change. He who is by grace steadfast in word and deed, abhorring evil end cleaving to good, shall never be moved even in a world of vain show. But we soon find out how fickle we are, when we are seriously given up to do the will of God. As long as it is only a theory of duty, we are to spare and let ourselves off easily. And we prove that it is sure to be no better with others till they have Christ as their life, and self is thoroughly judged before God. The Holy Spirit then helps us in power to glorify God, whatever it may cost us, and it is our delight thus to please Christ.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 19.<\/p>\n

THE DEVOTED FIELD SANCTIFIED TO JEHOVAH<\/p>\n

Lev 27:16-25<\/span><\/p>\n

There were two cases in the hallowing of the field, which are here distinguished, a field of the Israelite’s possession, and a field which he bought. Descent or purchase involved a marked difference.<\/p>\n

” 16 And if a man hallow to Jehovah out of a field of his possession, thy valuation shall be according to the seed thereof: the homer of barley seed at fifty shekels of silver. 17 If he hallow his field from the year of jubilee, according to thy valuation it shall stand; 18 but if he hallow his field after the jubilee, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain until the year of the jubilee, and there shall be a reduction from thy valuation. 19 And if he that hallowed the field will in any wise redeem it, he shall add the fifth of the money of thy valuation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. 20 But if he do not redeem the field, or if he sell the field to another man, it cannot be redeemed any more; 21 and the field when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy to Jehovah as a field devoted: the possession thereof shall be the priest’s. 22 And if he hallow to Jehovah a field that he hath bought, which [is] not the field of his possession, 23 the priest shall reckon to him the amount of thy valuation unto the year of the jubilee; and he shall give thy valuation on that day, holy unto Jehovah. 24 In the year of the jubilee the field shall return to him of whom it was bought, to him to whom the possession of the land [belonged] 25 And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel” (vers. 16-25).<\/p>\n

God will not allow His people to forget that the land of Canaan is His peculiarly, as they were to whom He gave it in possession. This was of their special favours. Israel were His people as no other nation could be then, and their land too was His that He might secure it to them for ever, unless they apostatised, for which He drove them out and made them the slave and butt of their enemies’ malice and contempt. So it was for their idolatry when the mother of idols led the Jew captive, as Assyria led away Ephraim long before; and so it was to be again as Isaiah foretold both (Isa. 40-48 and Isa. 49-57.) when the Roman should take away both their place and nation because they rejected the Messiah.<\/p>\n

But here it is an Israelite while acknowledged of Jehovah sanctifiying to Jehovah a part of a field of his possession. The valuation was to be according to the seed required, a homer of barley being rated at fifty shekels of silver. Here the jubilee rules, the standard for rectifying man’s weakness or fault and for restoring divine order. If he sanctified his field from the year of jubilee, it must stand according to the valuation. The jubilee proclaimed Jehovah’s rights unmistakeably; and if the field were devoted to Him, there could be no change The estimation allowed no abatement, nor meddling.<\/p>\n

But if after the jubilee the Israelite sanctified it, “then the priest shall reckon to him the money according to the years that remain to the year of the jubilee,” and thus equitable abatement ensues Yet the case does not end there. “If he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it,” he must submit to the usual forfeit required in thus departing from his original purpose of devotedness to Jehovah. The fifth part has to be added of the valuation money to that valuation price, in order to gain back the portion devoted.<\/p>\n

It is also laid down that, if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it “shall not be redeemed any more.” Further still, the rights of Jehovah are repeated by the provision that “the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy to Jehovah as a field devoted.” The terms of re-acquiring it had not been complied with. Jehovah was the real Landlord; and His title is not to be any longer subject to human caprice. “The possession thereof shall be the priest’s.” Thus Jehovah would exercise His people in a due regard for His majesty and word, who sought thereby the best blessing for His people, and the restitution of the land as well as of the people.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, if one sanctified to Jehovah a field which he had bought, outside the field of his possession, the priest must reckon unto him the worth of the valuation unto the year of jubilee; and this valuation was then and there to be given, a holy thing to Jehovah. There was no forfeit of the fifth part to be added to the price Nor did it abide holy to Jehovah beyond the year of jubilee; for then it must return to the original possessor of the land who had sold it. Jehovah’s gift held good: if man changes, He does not.<\/p>\n

Another law was applied inflexibly throughout these transactions. “And all thy valuations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel” (ver. 25). Israel might desire to purchase by what coin was most convenient in their dealings with the nations. But as in relation to the temple service and their redemption price, so here they must make their payments “according to the shekel of the sanctuary.”<\/p>\n

We are under grace, not law; but what a profound error that we se Christians are left to our own will or wisdom! We are bought with an infinite price, and are in no wise our own. Undoubtedly all things are ours, life or death, things present or things to come. But we are Christ’s by the same title which manes all to be ours; so that the bondman if called in the Lord is His freedman; and the free man if called is Christ’s bondman. Such is Christian liberty. Humbled at our sins, we rejoice in His grace which has set us free to be all the more His servants, as He was the lowliest of all and the only efficacious One in love without measure to God’s glory.<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 20.<\/p>\n

CONCLUDING REGULATIONS<\/p>\n

Lev 27:26-34<\/span><\/p>\n

It remains to notice briefly the verses that follow. ” 26 Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to Jehovah, no man shall sanctify it: whether [it be] ox or sheep, it [is] Jehovah’s. 27 And if [it be] of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom [it] according to thine estimation, and shall add to it the fifth thereof; or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thine estimation. 28 Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote to Jehovah of all that he hath, of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing [is] most holy to Jehovah. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death. 30 And all the tithe of the land, of the seed of the land, [or] of the fruit of the tree, [is] Jehovah’s, holy to Jehovah. 31 And if a man will redeem [aught] of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth thereof. 32 And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Jehovah. 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy: it shall not be redeemed. 34 These [are] the commandments which Jehovah commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai” (vers. 26-34).<\/p>\n

It was not unneeded to remind the thoughtless, that the firstlings of clean animals being already due to Jehovah were not objects of the devotedness contemplated in this chapter. Such firstlings were already His as every Israelite ought to know. But it was here interdicted, lest any should make a vow as to such, and deceive his soul to Jehovah’s dishonour.<\/p>\n

The same principle applies as we have seen already, if a man sought to redeem the firstling of an unclean beast. He must submit to the appointed estimation, and was not to make one of his own; and he must add a fifth to it as the penalty of changing his mind about a vow to Jehovah. If not redeemed, it was to be sold accordingly, as being incapable of any holy purpose.<\/p>\n

The great general rule was that what was devoted to Jehovah of all a man had, man, beast, field, should be sold or redeemed, every devoted thing being most holy to Jehovah. None devoted which shall be devoted of men should be ransomed, but surely put to death. As to the tithe of land, whether seed of the land, or fruit of the tree, all was Jehovah’s, holy to Him. And if a man would redeem of it, he must add the fifth as forfeit. Again, in tithe of herd or flock, the tenth was holy to Jehovah. And it was carefully insisted that he was not to search for good or bad, nor to change: Jehovah accepted it simply as it was. If however he did change it all, he must offer alike the original and the change: both should be holy, and neither to be ransomed.<\/p>\n

Thus did Jehovah teach His people to be obedient, and hate self-will. How much more is this incumbent on us whom the Spirit sanctified unto Christ’s obedience and the sprinkling of His blood, the Christian’s place as distinct from Israel’s! Practical righteousness is looked for in all; but righteousness is consistency with relationship, and Israel are an earthly people, the church a heavenly one.<\/p>\n

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

spake. See note on Lev 5:14. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 27<\/p>\n

Now the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, say unto them, When a man makes a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation ( Lev 27:1-2 ).<\/p>\n

Now if you make a vow unto God and say, “God, I’m gonna give You my life,” wonderful. “Now I want to take my life back. Lord, I’ve decided not to give You my life.” Well hey, He won’t play Indian giver with you. You want to take yourself back now? You don’t want to give your life to God? Okay, drop fifty shekels of silver into the pot. You had to buy yourself back from the Lord. You made a vow; you made a commitment. “God, I’m giving my life to You, now I’m gonna take my life back.” Okay, you can buy your life back from God for fifty shekels, or six? What is it? Fifty, sixty shekels of silver. Fifty shekels of silver. That’s if you’re a man. If you’re a girl, you get better off; you only get valued at thirty shekels of silver.<\/p>\n

Now the main idea is be careful what you promise God. You know the Bible says, “When you come into the presence of God don’t be swift to speak. You know, really weigh your words. The Psalmist prayed, “Lord don’t let me sin with my lips.” I think of how many times we actually sin with our lips when we’re making promises and vows to God.<\/p>\n

Now the Bible says, “It’s better not to make a vow at all”( Ecc 5:5 ). God doesn’t require you to make vows. So it’s better that you don’t make any vow at all, then to make a vow to God and break it, because God takes you serious.<\/p>\n

Now what if we tried to treat each other in our transactions like we treat God? “Oh friend, I’d like to give you my car. Here let me sign over the pink slip.” “Oh praise the Lord that’s wonderful. I need a car.” Then I come back the next day and say, “I’ve decided I don’t want to give you the car; I want it back.” “Oh man, I’ve already put new tires on it.” “Well, I want it back, my car you know.” We do that with God so often. “God I want to give You this. Lord, I want it back.” The Lord takes it serious. He doesn’t play those kinds of games with you. “All right if you want it back, put in the kitty what it’s worth.”<\/p>\n

That’s what the whole chapter is about. Anything that you vowed to God, anything that you promised to God, if you wanted to take it back, then God charged you. You’d have to come and give the estimate for it, and you’d have to pay the estimated value of that thing. You just don’t get it back from God. He doesn’t just give back to you. You have to buy back what you’ve given to God if you want it for yourself.<\/p>\n

So it starts out with people promising their lives. “Oh God, my life is Yours. I give my life to You.” “Fine, I’ll take it.” “Oh God, I want my life back.” “All right fifty shekels.” “Oh God, I give You my lamb Lord; it’s Your little lamb.” “Fine, I’ll take it.” “Oh Lord, it’s growing up to look so nice, and all, I could probably-” “Okay, buy it back from Me.” See but then if you bought the lamb back, not only did you have to pay the estimated price, but you had to add twenty percent. God wanted interest on His money. It’s not so easy. The bank hasn’t really gotten quite as heavy as God, as far as interest rates. God always said, “Add a fifth part thereto.”<\/p>\n

So here in the twenty-seventh chapter are the things that have been dedicated to God. God accepted them. They belonged to God. God considered ownership of them. Now, if you’re trying to renege, take it back, God will allow you to do it, but you’d have to pay for it. Then in a matter of things, you had to add a twenty percent surtax on it unto the Lord. The various ages by which things were valued, and the thing is you couldn’t make any switcheroos on God. You couldn’t give Him a lamb and it grows up to be real nice, and then you had one that was sort of sick, you switch it, you know, and do a switcheroo on God and give Him this poor one. He wouldn’t go for that either. So you try to switcheroo, they both belong to God. It’s so no switcheroos on Him. He wouldn’t go for that kind of a bit. You try that kind of stuff you get in trouble, because then He’ll take them both.<\/p>\n

So He goes on and lays out this whole thing of things dedicated to God, and if you wanted them back, the ways by which you got them back. Now as far as the firstborn of anything, that just automatically belonged to God. God laid claim to the firstborn of everything. The firstborn lamb, the firstborn calf, the firstborn of any of the animals, they all belonged to God. You wanted to keep them, you could buy them from God. But God just automatically laid claim to the firstborn of everything. Even your firstborn son you had to buy from God. He was firstborn, God claimed all the firstborn so “the firstborn is Mine, so you want him, you can buy him.” So God is a shrewd businessman and He deals in a very straightforward way.<\/p>\n

So the firstling of the beast which should be the Lord’s firstling, no man shall sanctify it. You don’t have to dedicate it, it’s already God’s whether it’s an ox, a sheep, it’s the Lord’s.<\/p>\n

And if it be of an unclean animal ( Lev 27:11 )<\/p>\n

If it’s a horse, or an animal that was considered unclean, you couldn’t offer it to God, then you had to buy it from the Lord, because it’s still the firstborn, still belongs to God. So you have a firstborn horse, you have to buy that from Him. He didn’t want the horse, so He’d just take the money instead.<\/p>\n

And ye shall redeem it according to the estimated price, and then add a fifth part thereto. ( Lev 27:13 ),<\/p>\n

If it is not to be redeemed, if you don’t redeem it, then you’ve got to sell it for the estimated price.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding [verse twenty-eight] no devoted thing, that a man shall devote to the Lord of all that he has, both of man and beast, of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. [Once you devote it to the Lord, it belongs to the Lord.] None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; [If you try to do it] you’ll be put to death. Now all the tithe of the land, whether the seed, or the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord ( Lev 27:28-30 ).<\/p>\n

So God just laid claim. He just came and laid claim to a tenth of everything, of the firstfruits, the first tenth belongs to God. Whatever’s left is yours. There wasn’t any, there wasn’t any quibbling about it; it’s just first tenth belongs to God.<\/p>\n

Now if you would hold back that tenth, if you would at all redeem that tenth that belongs to God, He just considers it belongs to Him. If you’re gonna hold back at all, then you’ve got to add twenty percent. Some people borrow from their tithes, man, that’s rough interest. Twenty percent if you borrow on your tithes. Because God said, “That’s Mine, keep your hands off of it; it belongs to Me.” If you take from it, then add a fifth part thereto; twenty percent.<\/p>\n

And if a man [verse thirty-one] will redeem all of his tithes, he shall add thereto a fifth part. [Twenty percent] And concerning the tithes of the herd, or the flock, even whatsoever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord ( Lev 27:28-30 ).<\/p>\n

Now you’re not to, you see, when you, when you bring your flock in, every tenth one belonged to God. You know the little firstling lamb that comes through, every tenth one, the Lord’s, separated. You’re not to look and see the tenth one coming through, and you watch, “Oh man”, and move the line. God doesn’t want any fudging’.<\/p>\n

And so as you’re passing them through the rod the tenth shall be the Lord’s. And you shall not search whether it is good or bad, neither shall you change it: because if you change it, then both the one that was supposed to be the Lord’s, and the one you changed it for, both belong to God; it shall not be redeemed. These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai ( Lev 27:32-34 ).<\/p>\n

So man, God you know is asking quite a bit. Yeah, but look what He’s giving you, three seventh-day vacations during the year, and every seventh year off. Plus plenty, plus His presence. I’d say that you’re getting a pretty good deal. Now if you do your part, God does His part. “If you will obey, this is what I’ll do.”<\/p>\n

As we come into the New Testament and we read scriptures such as, “Christ is the end of the law to those that believe”( Rom 10:4 ), “for the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”( Joh 1:17 ), “for we are not under law, but under grace”( Rom 6:14 ). It does mean that we do now have a new relationship with God which is not predicated upon doing and living.<\/p>\n

Thus, if you’ll read the book of Hebrews again, you’ll find it extremely interesting to you from the Christian perspective. Because in Hebrews it points out that this old covenant was predicated upon man’s obedience. For the scripture saith, “And he that shall do them shall live by them”( Rom 10:5 ).<\/p>\n

So the old covenant was predicated upon your obedience; your doing it. But man failed. The nation Israel is a testimony of man’s failure. God, in keeping His word, dispersed them out of the land, scattered them into all of the world, made their land desolate, yet maintained their national identity, and is now fulfilling that promise that He gave where He would again deal with them and bring them back into the land. But in the meantime, God has established a new covenant with man that is no longer based upon the old covenant, “and he that doeth them shall live by them”.<\/p>\n

But the new covenant is now established through the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Lord. The new covenant doesn’t emphasize what man does, but what God has done. Because the old covenant failed, not because it wasn’t good, not because it wasn’t righteous. It was a righteous covenant. Never look upon the law disparagingly, “Oh, that’s the law.” Hey wait a minute. The law is holy, just and good. It’s the law of God. “I consent to the law that it is right.” I read these things and I say, “Yes, that’s right.” My heart consents to the law, but my flesh rebels. My flesh doesn’t want to come under the yoke of the law. Thus, rather than being forever alienated from God, and from the love and the life of God, God has now established a new covenant with man. In the new covenant, God now accepts me on the basis not of what I am doing, but what on the basis of what He has done in sending His only Son to be a sacrifice for me, and to bear my sins, so that God can bring me into fellowship with Himself.<\/p>\n

Now the old covenant failed because of man’s weakness. The new covenant cannot fail, because God cannot fail. The old covenant predicated upon man couldn’t make it. The new covenant predicated now upon God’s faithfulness. Man’s faithfulness didn’t make it; God’s faithfulness, hey it’s going to make it. It can’t fail because God is faithful. God is going to do what He said He is going to do for you who will just simply now believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, or on the lordship of Jesus Christ. You who will just submit your lives to Jesus Christ, you enter into a new covenant relationship with God through faith of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

As you get into Hebrews, you’ll read all about it: the better covenant established through better promises, and better sacrifices, and better priesthood, the whole thing that we have through Jesus Christ. And the comparison is over against the book of Leviticus. And the end of the book of Leviticus, how does it end? The people are all alienated from God. The covenant was to bring them into fellowship with God, actually separated them from God and dispersed them into the world. So the old covenant having failed, it was necessary that God create a new covenant in order that man might be brought unto God. That new covenant God has established and confirmed it through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Now if you don’t want Jesus Christ, then the only way you can relate to God is under the old covenant. But no one was able to successfully relate to God under that old covenant. But that’s your only choice. “For there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved”( Act 4:12 ), Peter said, “the name of Jesus.” So He is our hope. He is the basis of our covenant that we have. He is the basis of our relationship with God, and we have fellowship with God through Him, and through the blood of His covenant.<\/p>\n

So go back and read Hebrews this week. You’re gonna find the book of Hebrews is just gonna come alive and open up to you like never before, having now had this foundation in Leviticus, and this old covenant which did fail. Now go back and reaffirm that relationship that you have with God through this new covenant in Jesus Christ, established under better promises.<\/p>\n

Shall we stand?<\/p>\n

Now as we go through the book of Numbers, whenever you get into the numbers, just skip it if you want. It’s not required reading. When you get into the genealogies of the families, skip those, they’re not required reading. I’ll let you off on that, but there are some neat little nuggets buried in some of these genealogies, and truths, and thoughts. So we’ll take the first ten chapters of Numbers next week, but you don’t have to read the whole thing. There are portions that you can just scan. But don’t scan the whole thing because there is some really valuable truths in this first ten chapters of Numbers, and so we’ll take the ten moving on through.<\/p>\n

May the Lord bless you and prosper you in His love, and in His grace, and in His fullness. May you just experience that joy of the Lord as your strength. May you be established in the hope that is ours through Jesus Christ, as we look for the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, who shall establish God’s kingdom and bring us all into that glorious age of ruling and reigning with Him, on an earth that has been renewed and revitalized. One on which we’ll keep the Sabbaths, no doubt, the years and the whole thing, glorious age of the King. May God sustain you, give you strength and power. In Jesus’ name. “<\/p>\n

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

In this final page of the Book of Leviticus we have something superadded to actual laws and yet of very vital importance. It is concerned with vows. A vow is a promise made to God voluntarily and not in obedience to any divine requirement. That is not to suggest that a vow is wrong. It expresses a devotion of the person or of property to the service of God beyond that which is demanded in the strict economy of relationship. It is not necessary therefore that any such vows should be made, but it is laid down clearly that if they are made, they must be religiously observed.<\/p>\n

Vows dealing with the devotion of the person, of beasts, of houses, and of fields are dealt with and the great principle is emphasized throughout that though such offerings are voluntarily, yet they must be paid to the full. If for any reason whatever one making such a vow desires to be set free from it or to redeem that which he has devoted, he must pay its full value, and something more, according to the appraisements of the priests. <\/p>\n

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

VII. CONCERNING VOWS<\/p>\n

The Claims of Jehovah Realized<\/p>\n

CHAPTER 27<\/p>\n

1. The singular vow (Lev 27:1-8)<\/p>\n

2. The sacrifice (Lev 27:9-13)<\/p>\n

3. Concerning the house (Lev 27:14-15)<\/p>\n

4. Concerning the land (Lev 27:16-25)<\/p>\n

5. Concerning the firstling (Lev 27:26-27)<\/p>\n

6. Devoted things (Lev 27:28-29)<\/p>\n

7. All holy to Jehovah (Lev 27:30-34)<\/p>\n

This last chapter in Leviticus concerns vows and devoted things. Israel is still in view here. At Horeb they had made their vow of being obedient and devoted to the Lord, but they could not meet the claims of what that vow meant. The sanctification as demanded in this book they could not fulfill. But grace is seen connected with it. The grace which is yet to flow out to Israel, the chosen nation. Sanctification by law is impossible; grace alone can sanctify. All mentioned is connected with the people. The house to be holy to Jehovah (verse 14) is Israel. The land too is mentioned, as well as the year of jubilee. The house, Israel, becomes Jehovahs; and the land also belongeth then to Him. The thought which runs through this final chapter of Leviticus is that Jehovah will have His own and God finally will be all in all.<\/p>\n

May Gods Spirit lead us into these blessed types and may we, as His bloodbought people, sanctified in Christ, walk in sanctification in the power of His Spirit.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Reciprocal: Gen 28:20 – vowed Lev 26:46 – General<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

VOWS AND TITHES<\/p>\n

We have in this closing chapter a supplement to the whole book. Hitherto we dealt with obligations and duties resting on all Israelites alike, but now we come to vows of an additional and voluntary character (Deu 23:22). <\/p>\n

PERSONS MIGHT BE VOWED (Lev 27:1-8) <\/p>\n

The thought is, that persons might be vowed for service in the sanctuary; but since service could not be found for so large a number, and especially for young children, who might be vowed, there might be a money equivalent for them. This equivalent, which was to be paid into the treasury of the sanctuary, was determined by the labor value of the person vowed as based on sex and age. It was always low enough not to burden the poor. <\/p>\n

DOMESTIC ANIMALS MIGHT BE VOWED (Lev 27:9-13) <\/p>\n

If the animal were suitable for sacrifice, it might be accepted for the service; but if otherwise, the priest must set a price on it for which it might be sold by the owner and the money placed in the treasury. In this case one-fifth more was to be added to the price, as a check perhaps, to prevent the making of rash vows. <\/p>\n

EXCLUSIONS FROM VOW (Lev 27:26-33) <\/p>\n

Houses and fields might be vowed (Lev 27:14-25), upon the same principles as the foregoing. But three kinds of property could not be vowed: the firstlings of the beasts (Lev 27:26); a devoted thing, in the sense of an accursed thing like the property in Jericho, (Lev 27:28-29 compared with Jos 7:17); and the tithe of the land (Lev 27:30). The reason for these prohibitions was that these already belonged to God, so their human possessors had no right to them. <\/p>\n

There is a serious matter here in the devotement or accursing of human beings, but we postpone its consideration till we meet with a conspicuous application of the principle at a later period. <\/p>\n

LAW OF THE TITHE<\/p>\n

The tithe was one of the things belonging to God in any event, and which could not be voluntarily vowed. <\/p>\n

This is specially interesting as raising the question whether the tithe is binding upon Christians at the present time. In our judgment it is not; but that does not mean that Christians may give according to impulse or caprice, since the New Testament lays down the principle of giving a fixed portion of our income to the Lord as He has prospered us (1Co 16:1-2; 2Co 8:7-9). It is customary under the Gospel to leave much to the individual conscience regarding the details of worship and conduct, which, under the Mosaic law was regulated by rule. Paul gives the explanation in Gal 4:1-5. <\/p>\n

CHRISTIAN VOWS<\/p>\n

Has a vow of any kind a place in the practical life of Christians? It seems not forbidden in the New Testament, but neither is it approved. <\/p>\n

The true conception of Christian life and duty leaves no room for a promise to God of what is not due, inasmuch as through the transcendent obligation of grateful love to Him for our redemption, everything is due (2Co 5:14-15). <\/p>\n

The question is not speculative, since it constitutes one of the distinctions between Romanism and Protestantism. The Romish theory of works of supererogation comes in here, and closely associated with it, the doctrine of purgatory. Here is the germ of the celibate life of the clergy, of sisterhoods and monasticism, the tendency of which is towards legalism on the one hand and moral declension on the other (Gal 4:9; Col 2:16-23). <\/p>\n

QUESTIONS <\/p>\n

1. What particular kind of vows is dealt with here? <\/p>\n

2. For what service were persons vowed? <\/p>\n

3. What properties could not be vowed, and why? <\/p>\n

4. Quote 1Co 16:1-2. <\/p>\n

5. Is a vow normal in the Christian life? <\/p>\n

LAW OF THE TITHE<\/p>\n

The tithe, or the dedication of the tenth of ones possessions to God, is a practice of antiquity, and a question arises as to whether the obligation is still resting upon those who would serve God in this dispensation? An answer was given in the last lesson, but it is desirable to enlarge upon it. <\/p>\n

While we hear nothing of the tithe in the first Christian centuries, it came into practice in the fourth century, and later was established as a law of the church for some centuries. <\/p>\n

The modern spirit has become more and more averse to it, until under the present voluntarism it has seemed likely to disappear altogether. <\/p>\n

In consequence of this there has been a revival of interest in it of late as necessary for the maintenance and extension of the church, those who would revive it holding that the principle is still binding on the Christian. <\/p>\n

In settling the question, it is to be remembered that the moral obligation is one thing and the legal another. Morally it is our duty to set apart for God a fixed proportion of our income, but the precise proportion is a subject on which the New Testament is silent. For the moral obligation see 1Co 16:1-2, where no reference is made to the legal obligation. If the tithe had been still binding as to the letter, this would have been the place for the apostle to have mentioned it. <\/p>\n

As a matter of fact, it is commonly found in the New Testament that the individual is left at liberty regarding the details of worship and conduct as compared with conditions under the Mosaic law (Gal 4:1-5). <\/p>\n

One author however, calls attention to a matter of importance not commonly considered in the discussion of this subject. For example, the people of Israel were under a theocratic government, where God Himself ruled, where the whole system of law was divinely executed. When thus carried out this system would have prevented excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of individuals, as we have seen in the consideration of earlier chapters of this book. There would thus have been secured an equal distribution of property, such as the world has never seen, and doubtless never will until the millennium. Under such circumstances it would have been possible to exact a certain proportion of income for sacred purposes with a certainty that it would have worked with perfect fairness to all. <\/p>\n

But with us it is different. Wealth is unequally distributed in our economy, and no law of the tithe could be made to work as in Israel. To the poor it would be a heavy burden, and to the rich a tax so small as to amount to exemption. The poor man would sometimes be required to take bread out of the mouths of wife and children, while the millionaire would still have thousands to spend in luxuries. The latter might often more easily give nine-tenths of his income than the former one-twentieth. <\/p>\n

While, therefore, the law of the tithe would not seem to be binding upon us to the letter, from the moral point of view it is still in force. It forbids the Christian to give simply according to impulse or whim. He is to lay by in store as the Lord hath prospered him. Let there be systematic giving to the Lords work under the law of a fixed proportion of gifts to income, inspired by recalling Gods grace to us (2Co 7:9), and the Lords treasury will never be empty, nor will the Lord Himself be robbed of His due. <\/p>\n

QUESTIONS <\/p>\n

1. Is the tithe a Biblical conception only? <\/p>\n

2. What is the difference between the moral and legal obligation to tithe? <\/p>\n

3. Why could the tithe operate successfully in Israel? <\/p>\n

4. Why not in our system of political economy? <\/p>\n

5. What obligation of giving rests on Christians? <\/p>\n

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Lev 27:2. A singular vow. When a man shall vow a vow; or as others contend, when a man shall vow to give the price of his life or labour to the Lord. The family of Aaron being appointed priests, and the whole tribe of Levi their assistants; persons desirous of aiding in the worship of the tabernacle, were but little encouraged. Some devoted persons were however accepted; and women were not exempt, for they could prepare the linen. But the levites were too numerous for the sacred service; and therefore they were very much employed as private tutors, Deu 14:27; and they diffused their services to the more distant parts of the land. See Numbers 30.<\/p>\n

Lev 27:28. No devoted thing. cherem, which the LXX render anathema. These strong words place the consciences of men in a most serious situation, who violate their vows, and rob God and the church of devoted things. They steal the offering, and God adds the leprosy as a punishment.<\/p>\n

REFLECTIONS.<\/p>\n

Coming now to the close of this sacred and shadowy code, we find the Israelites who devoted themselves to God by the vows of a national covenant, might also, to a certain extent, dispose of their persons and gifts in the same way. Every man might devote himself, his beast, his house, or a lot out of his land; and if not accepted, the value of it was paid into the public treasury for the service of God. The priest might enjoy a field so devoted, till the jubilee, and in some cases for ever. Over this treasure, whether arising from the spoils of war or from private gifts, the kings had a limited controul. 2Sa 8:11. 1Ki 7:51; 1Ki 15:18. David designed and Solomon applied the public treasure towards the building of the temple; and sometimes the kings of Judah have purchased a peace with their enemies out of the sacred treasury.<\/p>\n

To modify extravagant vows, the priest was appointed to estimate the services of devoted persons, and the worth of devoted things. Where a poor man in the warmth of his affections had devoted himself imprudently, he could mitigate the price of his redemption. In our vows and purposes we should therefore be prudent, and consider whether we be able to do so and so; whether it be wanted, and whether the Lord will accept our services and our work. He requires a reasonable service; and all rash and indiscreet vows are but obtrusions on the divine regard. In the dark ages of the church, when the Roman Catholic religion was in all its splendour, the vowing trade was carried to great excess. The churches and monasteries were incredibly enriched. No man would appear at a martyrs shrine empty; and scarcely an opulent man died, but he left an ox-gang of land, that the monks might pray for his soul. In sickness, trouble, or danger at sea, vows of the most ridiculous kind were often made, and almost as often not paid; and being the effect of guilt and fear, they frequently exposed religion to very great contempt. Nevertheless if a christian choose to make a religious vow, he has the example of St. Paul, and the sanction of the new testament for so doing; and provided the purposes of his heart are discreet and well timed, both he and his services shall be pleasing to God. In short, I would have every christian live in close covenant with God. I would have him consider himself as a person devoted in baptism, and more closely still by self-dedication and covenant. And though he may find daily breaches in his vows and purposes, let him every day renew his efforts, and live nearer to the Lord: purposes so sacred shall strengthen his faith in the hour of temptation.<\/p>\n

The Lord having prescribed his service, and appointed his ministers, next provided them a rich store of food in the tenths of cattle and corn: and although the laws of tithe are not repeated, or sanctioned in the new testament, our lands not coming by lot as in Israel: yet we are to revere the laws of our country, and see that neither Gods ministers nor his house lack whatever may be for his glory, or the advancement of true piety. Those who roll in luxury and affluence, and do nothing for religion, will stand in an awful situation when they meet the Lord and giver of all.<\/p>\n

But God having so well provided for his servants, let them learn to labour with all their might. Let their piety be as the heated iron, warming and sanctifying all around; and let their sermons be as the hammer which scatters the sparks on every side, that the most distant sphere of their labours may be kindled with the sacred fire. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Leviticus 27<\/p>\n

This closing section of our book treats of the “singular vow,” or the voluntary act whereby a person devoted himself or his property unto the Lord. “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be . . . . . . after the shekel of the sanctuary.”<\/p>\n

Now, in the case of a person devoting himself, or his beast, his house, or his field, unto the Lord, it was obviously a question of capacity or worth; and, hence, there was a certain scale of valuation, according to age. Moses, as the representative of the claims of God, was called upon to estimate, in each case, according to the standard of the sanctuary. If a man undertakes to Make a vow, he must be tried by the standard of righteousness; and, moreover, in all cases, we are called upon to recognise the difference between capacity and title. In Exodus 30: 15, we read, in reference to the atonement money, “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.” In the matter of atonement all stood upon one common level. Thus it must ever be. High and low, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, old and young, all have one common title. “There is no difference.” All stand alike on the ground of the infinite preciousness of the blood of Christ. There may be a vast difference as to capacity, as to title there is none. There may be a vast difference as to experience – as to title there is none. There may be a vast difference as to knowledge, gift, and fruitfulness – as to title there is none. The sapling and the tree, the babe and the father, the convert of yesterday and the matured believer, are all on the same ground. “The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less.” Nothing more could be given, nothing less could be taken. “We have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” This is our title to enter. Our capacity to worship, when we have entered, will depend upon our spiritual energy. Christ is our title. The Holy Ghost is our capacity. Self has nothing to do with either the one or the other. What a mercy! We get in by the blood of Jesus; we enjoy what we find there by the Holy Ghost. The blood of Jesus opens the door; the Holy Ghost conducts us through the house. The blood of Jesus opens the casket; the Holy Ghost unfolds the precious contents. The blood of Jesus makes the casket ours; the Holy Ghost enables us to appreciate its rare and costly gems.<\/p>\n

But, in Leviticus 27, it is entirely a question of ability, capacity, or worth. Moses had a certain standard from which he could not possibly descend. He had a certain rule from which he could not possibly swerve. If any one could come up to that well; if not, he had to take his place accordingly.<\/p>\n

What, then, was to be done in reference to the person who was unable to rise to the height of the claims set forth by the representative of divine righteousness? Hear the consolatory answer: “But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to, his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.” (Ver. 8) In other words, if it be a question of man’s undertaking to meet the claims of righteousness, then he must meet them. But if, on the other hand, a man feels himself wholly unable to meet those claims, he has only to fall back upon grace, which will take him up, just as he is. Moses is the representative of the claims of divine righteousness. The priest is the exponent of the provisions of divine grace. The poor man who was unable to stand before Moses fell back into the arms of the priest. Thus it is ever. If we cannot “dig” we can “beg;” and directly we take the place of a beggar, it is no longer a question of what we are able to earn, but of what God is pleased to give. “Grace all the work shall crown, through everlasting days.” How happy it is to be debtors to grace! How happy to take when God is glorified in giving! When man is in question, it is infinitely better to dig than to beg; but when God is in question, the case is the very reverse.<\/p>\n

I would just add, that I believe this entire chapter bears, in an especial manner, upon the nation of Israel. It is intimately connected with the two preceding chapters. Israel made “a singular vow” at the foot of Mount Horeb; but were quite unable to meet the claims of law – they were far “poorer than Moses’ estimation.” But, blessed be God, they will come in under the rich provisions of divine grace. Having learnt their total inability “to dig,” they will not be “ashamed to beg;” and, hence, they shall experience the deep blessedness of being cast upon the sovereign mercy of Jehovah, which stretches, like a golden chain, “from everlasting to everlasting.” It is well to be poor, when the knowledge of our poverty serves but to unfold to us the exhaustless riches of divine grace. That grace can never suffer any one to go empty away. It can never tell any one that he is too poor. It can meet the very deepest human need; and not only so but it is glorified in meeting it. This holds good in every case. It is true of any individual sinner; and it is true with respect to Israel, who, having been valued by the Lawgiver, have proved “poorer than his estimation.” Grace is the grand and only resource for all. It is the basis of our salvation; the basis of a life of practical godliness; and the basis of those imperishable hopes which animate us amid the trials and conflicts of this sin-stricken world. May we cherish a deeper sense of grace, and more ardent desire for the glory!<\/p>\n

We shall here close our meditations upon this most profound and precious book. If the foregoing pages should be used of God to awaken an interest in a section of inspiration which has been so much neglected by the Church, in all ages, they shall not have been written in vain.<\/p>\n

C. H. M.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Mackintosh’s Notes on the Pentateuch<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Lev 27:1-8. Commutation for a Person.Where an individual vows himself or herself to Yahweh (cf. Jdg 11:30 f., 1Sa 1:28) the commutation price will vary in proportion to the valuation of his or her labour; for a man in the prime of life this will amount to 50 sacred silver shekels (cf. thirty pieces of silver). This would be equivalent in early post-exilic times to something under 7 (the sacred silver shekel probably being equivalent to the heavy Phnician silver shekel, p. 116). For an infant or young child, a boy is valued at a sum roughly equivalent to 14s., a girl about 8s., and so on. In cases of poverty a special valuation is to be made.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

THE PERSONAL VOW (vv. 1-8)<\/p>\n

This was not a matter of a law requiring anything, but of a voluntary vow made to God. Though it was not required, yet when the vow was made, then it was absolutely required to be kept. If one were to consecrate to the Lord one of his family, the value of this was estimated in currency. A male from 20 to 60 years of age was estimated at 50 shekels of silver (v. 3). A female of the same age was valued at 30 shekels; a boy between 5 and 20 years was 20 shekels, and a girl of that age 10 shekels (v. 5). A little boy, from 1 month to 5 years was valued at 5 shekels and a little girls 3 shekels (v. 6). For a higher age, 60 years and older, the valuation for a male was 15 shekels and for a female 10 shekels (v. 7).<\/p>\n

This was law. Israel had vowed to do all that the Lord commanded (Exo 19:8; Exo 24:2; Exo 24:7). God held them to it, but they did not keep this vow. Every individual therefore had incurred a debt they have never paid, nor can pay. Their condition for that reason is hopeless. Only God’s grace can meet it, grace that came in the person of the Son of God, but which Israel then refused. Only when their minds are changed will they receive such grace.<\/p>\n

Because of man’s proven unfaithfulness proven by Israel under law, the Lord Jesus warned people not to vow at all (Mat 5:33-37). In other words, we are not to trust ourselves. Our trust must be only in the Lord, whose word can never fail.<\/p>\n

Verse 8 makes one exception in the case of valuation. If one was too poor to pay, the priest was allowed to lower the valuation to accommodate the person’s poverty. This is not absolute law, but law tempered by mercy, which does show, even at that time, that God is a God who delights in mercy.<\/p>\n

A DEVOTED SACRIFICE (vv. 9-13)<\/p>\n

Next we have the question of animals given to the Lord. All that were given as sacrifices were holy: once given there could be no change of mind (v. 9). No substitute was allowed in any case. If one decided to exchange it for another, both animals would be forfeit and holy (v. 10).<\/p>\n

If an unclean animal was devoted to the Lord, therefore one not qualified as a sacrifice, the priest would set a value on the animal, and if it was to be redeemed, then one-fifth was to be added to the valuation, and it could be redeemed (vv. 11-13). In other words, if anything was given to God, God must gain from it, for His glory is to be supremely recognized. Thus, in the sacrifice of Christ, God has been infinitely glorified. The gain was His. Yet, when God gains, we shall gain too, as is wonderfully true in the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.<\/p>\n

A HOUSE SANCTIFIED (vv. 14-15)<\/p>\n

There is again a higher significance in this case than simply the matter of a person’s house being set apart for the Lord. This was true of the temple in Israel: being sanctified, it was God’s property, and the Lord called it My Father’s house (Joh 2:16). In the epistles of the New Testament, however, the house of God is no longer a material building, but a house composed of all believers, a spiritual house (1Pe 2:5). Every believer is a stone a living stone in that building, a house exclusively for God, a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:22). Again, God is to gain by this house being sanctified for Him. <\/p>\n

Another principle is introduced in the case of one desiring to redeem his house. If so, one-fifth was to be added to its estimated worth (v. 15). The Lord Jesus will yet redeem the house of Israel by virtue of His sacrifice already accomplished, which has more than paid for the value of the house: therefore it can be said, it shall be His.<\/p>\n

A FIELD SANCTIFIED (vv. 17-25)<\/p>\n

If a field was devoted to the Lord, its value would be estimated according to the value of the seed that could be planted in it (v. 16). This tells us that the crop was more important than the field. Typically, the field is the world (Mat 13:38), and the seed speaks of the word of God (Mar 4:14) which produces fruit in believers in the world, who are more important than merely the literal earth. The world today has been devoted to God for judgment, though the day of Jubilee will bring a wonderful liberation at the coming of the Lord Jesus in power and glory. The judgment of the world will issue then in its liberation from bondage.<\/p>\n

If the first owner of the field wanted to redeem it, again he must add the fifth part to its valuation. So also, the redemption of the world requires the price the Lord Jesus has already paid in His marvelous sacrifice of Calvary, which is greater than the value of the world. Today the world has been purchased (Mat 13:44), not yet been redeemed, though all believers have been redeemed; and the world itself will be redeemed when the Lord takes His great power and reigns over all (Rom 8:21).<\/p>\n

The case of one who does not want to redeem his field, or of his selling the field to another man, is added in verse 20. If this were so, then the field, when released in the Jubilee, would be sanctified to the Lord and become the possession of the priest (v. 21). This indicates that in the millennium the Lord Jesus, as God’s Priest, will inherit the earth, while Israel will be a kingdom of priests (Exo 19:6), identified with Him, and therefore also inheriting the earth (Mat 5:5).<\/p>\n

FIRSTBORN OF ANIMALS (vv. 26-27)<\/p>\n

Under law, in every case, the firstborn of an animal was devoted to the Lord. It could not therefore be a voluntary offering: it must be sacrificed because it belonged to the Lord.<\/p>\n

But an unclean animal could not be sacrificed to the Lord. Therefore a provision was made for its redemption. One might pay the priest’s estimated value of it plus one-fifth. However, Exo 13:13 makes one exception. The firstborn of a donkey was to be redeemed with a lamb, but if not redeemed, the donkey must have its neck broken. The significance of this is plain. Man is like a wild donkey’s colt, unclean, untamed and rebellious. He must be redeemed by the Lamb, the Lord Jesus Christ, or else have his stiff-necked rebellion broken in dreadful judgment. All humans are like unclean animals, needing to be redeemed.<\/p>\n

DEVOTED TO DESTRUCTION (vv. 28-29)<\/p>\n

This is the case of something, or someone being placed under the ban (v. 29) because of the serious corruption of sin. Once this devoting to destruction has taken place, there is no release, no redemption. Therefore, whether it may be principles of evil or humans identified with the evil, once the pronouncement of God has taken place against the evil, it cannot be reversed. God deals constantly in great grace seeking to bring people to repentance, but in spite of this, some resist this great mercy of God and eventually manifest themselves as enemies of God, determined to act in rebellion. Therefore, they become as Rom 9:22 describes, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and they stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which also they were appointed (1Pe 2:8).<\/p>\n

We do not decide when people have crossed the line to assume positive hostility against God, but we should continue preaching the gospel to them as long as they will listen. But God knows, and when once He has decided that they are under the ban of devotion to destruction, nothing can change this. How dreadful a consideration for those who dare to resist the gracious pleadings of the Spirit of God! This is the case of those spoken of in Heb 6:4-8 and Heb 10:26-31.<\/p>\n

THE TITHE INVOLVING COMPLETE SANCTIFICATION (vv. 30-34)<\/p>\n

The Book of Leviticus fittingly closes with the tithe (one tenth) of the fruit of the land being sanctified to the Lord (v. 30). The number 10 speaks of responsibility, so Israel was responsible to render to God one-tenth of all that He gave them. If so, God would greatly bless them. If a man wanted to redeem a tithe he must add one-fifth to its value (v. 31). This would keep Israel from making greed a motive.<\/p>\n

One was not to first inspect his animals with the object of keeping the best and using the other as a tithe, but to give one-tenth without any such inspection (v. 33). A proposed exchange would forfeit the exchange.<\/p>\n

In one way this conclusion of Leviticus is prophetic of Israel’s eventual great blessing when they give the Lord Jesus His true place. Because He will be honored, they will be greatly blessed. This is just as true for us also. In the measure in which we honor Him now, we shall be spiritually blessed, and in eternity when He is in full measure honored, His saints shall be in full measure blessed. Wonderful anticipation!<\/p>\n

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

H. DIRECTIONS CONCERNING VOWS ch. 27<\/span><\/p>\n

The blessings and curses (ch. 26) were in a sense God’s vows to His people. This chapter deals with His people’s vows to Him. Another connection between these chapters is that in times of divine discipline (Lev 26:14-33) people tend to make vows to God. Chapter 27 shows how God wanted the Israelites to honor their vows. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 336.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"The directions concerning vows follow the express termination of the Sinaitic lawgiving (chap. xxvi. 46), as an appendix to it, because vows formed no integral part of the covenant laws, but were a freewill expression of piety common to almost all nations, and belonged to the modes of worship current in all religions, which were not demanded and might be omitted altogether, and which really lay outside the law, though it was necessary to bring them into harmony with the demands of the law upon Israel." [Note: Keil and Delitzsch, 2:479.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"No true worship can end without presenting ourselves and our substance to the Lord, Who provides all our benefits." [Note: Louis Goldberg, Leviticus: A Study Guide Commentary, p. 143.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"Just as the whole of the giving of the Law at Sinai began with ten commandments, so it now ends with a list of ten laws. The content of the ten laws deals with the process of payment of vows and tithes made to the Lord." [Note: Sailhamer, p. 365.] <\/span><\/p>\n

The ten laws, which I have combined somewhat for convenience, are in Lev 27:1-34.<\/p>\n

God did not command the Israelites to make vows or to promise anything to Him. However vowing is a natural desire of people who love God or want things from God. Therefore God gave the Israelites regulations that were to govern their vowing and dedicating. Though God did not command vows, He expected that once His people made them they would keep them (cf. Pro 20:25; Ecc 5:3-5). It may be that part of the purpose of these regulations was to discourage rash swearing by fixing a relatively high price on the discharge and changing of vows. [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 337.] <\/span><\/p>\n

"A vow to God placed a person or property in a special consecrated relationship which stood outside the formal demands of the law." [Note: Harrison, p. 235.] <\/span><\/p>\n

A vow was a promise to give oneself or one’s possessions to God so He would bestow some blessing or because He had already bestowed a blessing. People made vows to do something or not do something. Vows were normally temporary. When a person wanted to get back what he had vowed to God he had to pay a certain price to the sanctuary to buy back what he had given to God. This constituted redeeming what the person had vowed. Old Testament examples of people who made vows are Jephthah (Jdg 11:30-31) and Hannah (1Sa 1:11). Votive offerings were offerings made in payment of vows.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. Vows concerning persons 27:1-8<\/span><\/p>\n

The amount of money that a person had to pay at the end of a vow in which he pledged a person depended on the age and sex of the individual. Some people were worth more in this respect than others.<\/p>\n

"These figures are very large. The average wage of a worker in biblical times was about one shekel per month. [Note: I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East, p. 118.] <\/span> It is little wonder that few could afford the valuations set out here (Lev 27:8)." [Note: Wenham, The Book . . ., p. 338.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CONCERNING VOWS<\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-34<\/p>\n

As already remarked, the book of Leviticus certainly seems, at first sight, to be properly completed with the previous chapter; and hence it has been not unnaturally suggested that this chapter has by some editor been transferred, either of intention or accident, from an earlier part of the book – as, e.g., after chapter 25. The question is one of no importance; but it is not hard to perceive a good reason for the position of this chapter after not only the rest of the law, but also after the words of promise and threatening which conclude and seal its prescriptions. For what has preceded has concerned duties of religion which were obligatory upon all Israelites; the regulations of this chapter, on the contrary, have to do with special vows, which were obligatory on no one, and concerning which it is expressly said. {Deu 23:22} “If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee.” To these, therefore, the promises and threats of the covenant could not directly apply, and therefore the law which regulates the making and keeping of vows is not unfitly made to follow, as an appendix, the other legislation of the book.<\/p>\n

Howsoever the making of vows be not obligatory as a necessary part of the religious life, yet, in all ages and in all religions, a certain instinct of the heart has often led persons, either in order to procure something from God, or as a thank offering for some special favour received, or else as a spontaneous expression of love to God, to “make a special vow.” But just in proportion to the sincerity and depth of the devout feeling which suggests such special acts of worship and devotion, will be the desire to act in the vow, as in all else, according to the will of God, so that the vow may be accepted of Him. What then may one properly dedicate to God in a vow? And, again, if by any stress of circumstances a man feels compelled to seek release from a vow, is he at liberty to recall it? and if so, then under what conditions? Such are the questions which in this chapter were answered for Israel.<\/p>\n

As for the matter of a vow, it is ruled that an Israelite might thus consecrate unto the Lord either persons, or of the beasts of his possession, or his dwelling, or the right in any part of his land. On the other hand, “the firstling among beasts” (Lev 27:26-27), any “devoted thing” (Lev 27:28-29), and the tithe (Lev 27:30-33) might not be made the object of a special vow, for the simple reason that on various grounds each of these belonged unto the Lord as His due already. Under each of these special heads is given a schedule of valuation, according to which, if a man should wish for any reason to redeem again for his own use that which, either by prior Divine claim or by special vow, had been dedicated to the Lord, he might be permitted to do so.<\/p>\n

OF THE VOWING OF PERSONS<\/p>\n

Lev 27:1-8<\/p>\n

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And the estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and upward; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels. But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him.”<\/p>\n

First, we have the law (Lev 27:2-8) concerning the vowing of persons. In this case it does not appear that it was intended that the personal vow should be fulfilled by the actual devotement of the service of the person to the sanctuary. For such service abundant provision was made by the separation of the Levites, and it can hardly be imagined that under ordinary conditions it would be possible to find special occupation about the sanctuary for all who might be prompted thus to dedicate themselves by a vow to the Lord. Moreover, apart from tins, we read here of the vowing to the Lord of young children, from five years of age down to one month, from whom tabernacle service is not to be thought of.<\/p>\n

The vow which dedicated the person to the Lord was therefore usually discharged by the simple expedient of a commutation price to be paid into the treasury of the sanctuary, as the symbolic equivalent of the value of his self-dedication. The persons thus consecrated are said to be “for the Lord,” and this fact was to be recognised and their special dedication to Him discharged by the payment of a certain sum of money. The amount to be paid in each instance is fixed by the law before us, with an evident reference to the labour value of the person thus given to the Lord in the vow, as determined by two factors-the sex and the age. Inasmuch as the woman is inferior in strength to the man, she is rated lower than he is. As affected by age, persons vowed are distributed into four classes: the lowest, from one month up to five years; the second, from five years to twenty; the third, from twenty to sixty; the fourth, from sixty years of age and upwards.<\/p>\n

The law takes first (Lev 27:3-4) the case of persons in the prime of their working powers, from twenty to sixty years old, for whom the highest commutation rate is fixed; namely, fifty shekels for the male and thirty for a female, “after the shekel of the sanctuary,” i.e., of full standard weight. If younger than this, obviously the labour value of the persons service would be less; it is therefore fixed (Lev 27:5) at twenty shekels for the male and ten for the female, if the age be from five to twenty; and if the person be over sixty, then (Lev 27:7), as the feebleness of age is coming on, the rate is fifteen shekels for the male and ten for the female. In the case of a child from one month to five years old, the rate is fixed (Lev 27:6) at five, or, in a female, then at three shekels. In this last case it will be observed that the rate for the male is the same as that appointed {Num 18:15-16} for the redemption of the firstborn, “from a month old,” in all cases. As in that ordinance, so here, the payment was merely a symbolic recognition of the special claim of God on the person, without any reference to a labour value.<\/p>\n

But although the sum was so small that even at the most it could not nearly represent the actual value of the labour of such as were able to labour, yet one can see that cases might occur when a man might be moved to make such a vow of dedication of himself or of a child to the Lord, while he was yet too poor to pay even such a small amount. Hence the kindly provision (Lev 27:8) that if any person be poorer than this estimation, he shall not therefore be excluded from the privilege of self-dedication to the Lord, but “he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, 1 8. The case of persons Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Dues. The position which this chapter holds after the formal conclusion, Lev 26:46, suggests that it is of a supplementary character. There seems, however, no reason to doubt its Mosaic origin. Fuente: Albert Barnes’ … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 27:1”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3580","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3580","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}