14, 15. The case of houses<\/em> 16 25. The case of lands<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The vow, as regards its duration, is thus limited to a maximum of 50 years, being determined by the distance of the year of Jubile. When that year arrives, the field shall return to the owner, to be disposed of as he pleases. But even in the meantime, on payment of a defined sum of redemption-money, the field shall remain in the enjoyment of the owner, and the estimate for the purpose shall be at the rate of fifty shekels of silver for the amount of land (about 3 8\/4 acres, according to Kennedy, ad loc.<\/em>) which would yield one homer (about eleven bushels) of barley, with an abatement in proportion to the number of years to run before the next Jubile. In order to obtain the enjoyment of the field, however, the owner must pay a further sum amounting to one-fifth of the redemption-money. In case the owner do not desire to redeem, or have alienated the land by selling it to another, the law of Jubile is not to operate; the land shall become the possession of the priest. In the case of a man’s vowing land which is his by purchase and not by inheritance, that purchase shall not hold good beyond the Jubile, the purchaser redeeming it in the meantime by a payment calculated on the same principle as above.<\/p>\n Sanctify – <\/B>i. e. vow to devote. This law relates to houses in the country Lev 25:31<\/span>, which were under the same general law as the land itself, with a right of redemption for the inheritor until the next Jubilee. See Lev 27:17-19<\/span>. For houses in walled towns the right of redemption lasted for only one year Lev 25:29<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 14<\/span>. Shall sanctify his house<\/B><\/I>] The yearly rent of which, when thus consecrated, went towards the repairs of the tabernacle, which was the house of the Lord.<\/P><\/p>\n Sanctify his house, <\/B>to wit, by a vow, for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole chapter. <\/P> Holy uno the Lord; <\/B>in which case the benefit of it redounded either to the priests, for their maintenance, Num 18:4<\/span>, or to the sanctuary, for its reparations or expenses. <\/P> So shall it stand; <\/B>supposing that the priests estimation doth not notoriously swerve from the rules of valuation prescribed by God. For if the priest determined most unrighteously and unreasonably, as suppose a hundred times more than the true value of it, I presume no man is so void of sense as to say they were all bound to stand to the priests determination in that case. Even as in case a mans leprosy was notorious and unquestionable, if a priest should through partiality pronounce him clean, this did not make him clean. And therefore all those passages of Scripture which leave things to, and command men to acquiesce in, the determination of the priest or priests, are to be understood with this exception, that their determinations be not evidently contrary to the revealed will of God, to whom priests are subject and accountable. Otherwise, if the priests had commanded men to profane the sabbath, this would have acquitted them from the obligation of Gods command of keeping it holy, which is impious and absurd to affirm. And this consideration will give light to many scriptures. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14, 15. when a man shall sanctifyhis house to be holy unto the Lord,<\/B> &c.In this case, thehouse having been valued by the priest and sold, the proceeds of thesale were to be dedicated to the sanctuary. But if the owner wished,on second thought, to redeem it, he might have it by adding a fifthpart to the price.<\/P><\/p>\n And when a man shall sanctify his house [to be] holy unto the Lord<\/strong>,…. Shall set it apart for sacred service, devote it to holy uses, so that it may be sold, and the money laid out in sacrifices, the repairs of the temple, c. under this any other goods are comprehended, concerning which the Jews say,<\/p>\n “he that sanctifieth his goods, and his wife’s dowry is upon him, or he is a debtor his wife cannot demand her, dowry out of that which is sanctified, nor a creditor his debt; but if he will redeem he may redeem, on condition that he gives the dowry to the wife, and the debt to the creditor; if he has set apart ninety pounds and his debt is an hundred, he may add a penny more, and with it redeem those goods, on condition he gives the wife her dowry and the creditor his debt: whether he sanctifies or estimates his goods, he has no power over his wife’s or children’s clothes, nor over coloured things, died on their account, nor on new, shoes he has bought for them z, c.”<\/p>\n again it is said a,<\/p>\n “if anyone sanctified his goods, and there were among them things fit for the altar wine, oil, and fowls, R. Eliezer says, they might be sold to those that need any of, that kind, and with the price of them burnt offerings might be bought, and the rest of the goods fell to the repair of the temple:”<\/p>\n then the priest shall estimate it whether it be good or bad<\/strong>; shall examine it of what size and in what condition it is, whether a large well built house or not, and whether in good repair or not, and accordingly set a price upon it:<\/p>\n as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand<\/strong>; according to the price he shall set upon it, it may be sold; whoever will give it may purchase it, excepting the owner or he that has sanctified it, he must pay a fifth part more, as follows.<\/p>\n z Misn. Eracin, c. 6. sect. 2, 5. a Misn. Shekalim, c. 4. sect. 8.<\/p>\n When a house<\/em> was vowed, the same rules applied as in the case of unclean cattle. Knobel’s<\/em> supposition, that the person making the vow was to pay the valuation price if he did not wish to redeem the house, is quite a groundless supposition. The house that was not redeemed was sold, of course, for the good of the sanctuary.<\/p>\n Concerning Things Sanctified.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1490.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 14 And when a man shall sanctify his house to be<\/I> holy unto the LORD<\/B>, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. 15 And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part<\/I> of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his. 16 And if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD<\/B> some part<\/I> of a field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley seed shall be valued<\/I> at fifty shekels of silver. 17 If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee, according to thy estimation it shall stand. 18 But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubilee, and it shall be abated from thy estimation. 19 And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part<\/I> of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. 20 And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more. 21 But the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the LORD<\/B>, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest’s. 22 And if a man<\/I> sanctify unto the LORD<\/B> a field which he hath bought, which is<\/I> not of the fields of his possession; 23 Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even<\/I> unto the year of the jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as<\/I> a holy thing unto the LORD<\/B>. 24 In the year of the jubilee the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even<\/I> to him to whom the possession of the land did belong.<\/I> 25 And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.<\/P> Here is the law concerning real estates dedicated to the service of God by a singular vow.<\/P> I. Suppose a man, in his zeal for the honour of God, should sanctify his house to God<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 14<\/span>), the house must be valued by the priest, and the money got by the sale of it was to be converted to the use of the sanctuary, which by degrees came to be greatly enriched with dedicated things,<\/I> 1 Kings xv. 15<\/I><\/span>. But, if the owner be inclined to redeem it himself, he must not have it so cheap as another, but must add a fifth part to the price, for he should have considered before he had vowed it, v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>. To him that was necessitous God would abate the estimation (v.<\/I><\/span> 8<\/span>); but to him that was fickle and humoursome, and whose second thoughts inclined more to the world and his secular interest than his first, God would rise in the price. Blessed be God, there is a way of sanctifying our houses to be holy unto the Lord, without either selling them or buying them. If we and our houses serve the Lord, if religion rule in them, and we put away iniquity far from them, and have a church in our house, holiness to the Lord is written upon it, it is his, and he will dwell with us in it.<\/P> II. Suppose a man should sanctify some part of his land to the Lord, giving it to pious uses, then a difference must be made between land that came to the donor by descent and that which came by purchase, and accordingly the case altered.<\/P> 1. If it was the inheritance of his fathers, here called the field of his possession,<\/I> which pertained to his family from the first division of Canaan, he might not give it all, no, not to the sanctuary; God would not admit such a degree of zeal as ruined a man’s family. But he might sanctify or dedicate only some part of it, v.<\/I><\/span> 16<\/span>. And in that case, (1.) The land was to be valued (as our countrymen commonly compute land) by so many measures’ sowing of barley. So much land as would take a homer,<\/I> or chomer,<\/I> of barley, which contained ten ephahs, Ezek. xlv. 11<\/span> (not, as some have here mistaken it, an omer,<\/I> which was but a tenth part of an ephah, Exod. xvi. 36<\/span>), was valued at fifty shekels, a moderate price (v.<\/I><\/span> 16<\/span>), and that if it were sanctified immediately from the year of jubilee, v.<\/I><\/span> 17<\/span>. But, if some years after, there was to be a discount accordingly, even of that price, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. And, (2.) When the value was fixed, the donor might, if he pleased, redeem it for sixty shekels the homer’s sowing, which was with the addition of a fifth part: the money then went to the sanctuary, and the land reverted to him that had sanctified it, v.<\/I><\/span> 19<\/span>. But if he would not redeem it, and the priest sold it to another, then at the year of jubilee, beyond which the sale could not go, the land came to the priests, and was theirs for ever, Lev 27:20<\/span>; Lev 27:21<\/span>. Note, What is given to the Lord ought not to be given with a power of revocation; what is devoted to the Lord must be his for ever, by a perpetual covenant.<\/P> 2. If the land was his own purchase, and came not to him from his ancestors, then not the land itself, but the value of it was to be given to the priests for pious uses, Lev 27:22<\/span>; Lev 27:24<\/span>. It was supposed that those who, by the blessing of God, had grown so rich as to become purchasers would think themselves obliged in gratitude to sanctify some part of their purchase, at least (and here they are not limited, but they might, if they pleased, sanctify the whole), to the service of God. For we ought to give as God prospers us,<\/I> 1 Cor. xvi. 2<\/I><\/span>. Purchasers are in a special manner bound to be charitable. Now, forasmuch as purchased lands were by a former law to return at the year of jubilee to the family from which they were purchased, God would not have that law and the intentions of it defeated by making the lands corban, a gift,<\/I> Mark vii. 11<\/I><\/span>. But it was to be computed how much the land was worth for so many years as were from the vow to the jubilee; for only so long it was his own, and God hates robbery for burnt-offerings.<\/I> We can never acceptably serve God with that of which we have wronged our neighbour. And so much money he was to give for the present, and keep the land in his own hands till the year of jubilee, when it was to return free of all encumbrances, even that of its being dedicated to him of whom it was bought. The value of the shekel by which all these estimations were to be made is here ascertained (v.<\/I><\/span> 25<\/span>); it shall be twenty gerahs, and every gerah was sixteen barley-corns. This was fixed before (Exod. xxx. 13<\/span>); and, whereas there had been some alterations, it is again fixed in the laws of Ezekiel’s visionary temple (Ezek. xlv. 12<\/span>), to denote that the gospel should reduce things to their ancient standard.<\/P><\/p>\n Verses 14, 15:<\/strong><\/p>\n The regulations which applied to a house sanctified by a vow were the same as those which applied to unclean animals. It was the common practice to redeem these by payment of the appraised value of the house, plus twenty percent.<\/p>\n 14. And when a man shall sanctify his house. A third kind of vows follows, viz., the consecration of houses and lands; under which head also an alternative is appointed, so that religion may not be despised, and still the just possessors should not be driven from their houses, or the lands be rendered useless from the want of cultivation. Those persons vowed their houses, who sought of God for themselves and families that they might inhabit them in health, and safety, and in general prosperity; and he who wished to obtain fertility for his fields, vowed one of ten or twenty acres. Undoubtedly superstitious prayers were sometimes mixed up with this exercise of piety, as if they might acquire favor for themselves by making a bargain with God. Still, inasmuch as the thing was not wrong in itself, God indulgently bore with the errors which could not be very easily corrected, lest, in His hatred of them, He might altogether abolish what was useful and laudable. Hence the redemption both of house and land was permitted. But if any one had committed fraud in selling a piece of land that was vowed, a heavier punishment is added, i.e., that he should go without it for ever. We shall speak more fully elsewhere of the year of jubilee. (320) At present this must be observed, that, lest the partition of land made by Joshua should ever be altered, since God had clearly shewn that it was done by His authority, God recalled each of the tribes every fiftieth year to their original share, and thus entirely restored the possessors whom poverty had driven out. In proportion, then, to the closeness or remoteness of that year, since possession would be so much the shorter or longer, land was cheap or dear. God does not here measure the fields by the pole or chain, but estimates them simply, as among a rude people, by the seed; viz., if a field in sowing takes a homer (321) of barley, it shall remain in the hands of its possessor if he pays fifty shekels of the sanctuary. We have elsewhere seen that these were double the ordinary shekel. But since vows were often made in the middle or towards the end of the jubilee, a distinction is stated; and God commands the priests to take the time into consideration, and the nearer the jubilee-year may be to diminish so much of the price. Where, however, a fraud had taken place, God would not have the honest purchaser ejected; but, when the jubilee was over, He assigned the field, which had been held for a time in sacrilege, to the priests for ever. Moses compares this consecration to an anathema, which the Hebrews call חרם, cherem, (322) a word whose radical meaning is destroying or abolishing; for which reason the Latins take a “devoted” thing in a bad sense, as what is destined to final destruction. The law is then extended to lands which had been sold, and which, in the year of jubilee, returned to their former owners; because the first allotment of the land was then wholly restored. For these fields God commands a price to be paid, upon a calculation of the time, so that only the produce and not the fee should be taken into account. <\/p>\n Now, since people have improperly and in foolish mimicry imitated the vows which God permitted to the Jews under the Law, so the Pope, in providing for their redemption, has dared in his diabolical arrogance to rival God. The titulus (323) is well-known in the Third Book of Decretals; “ De voto, et ejus redemptione ;” wherein its concocter, whoever he was, has so sought to impose upon the world with his shameless nonsense, as not to hesitate to heap together directly contradictory sentences; and even if there were no contradictions there, still nothing is laid down except how votive pilgrimages are to be redeemed, which plainly appear from Christ’s declaration to be wrong since the preaching of the gospel. (Joh 4:21<\/span>.) And assuredly it was a marvellous fascination of the devil, that what was said under the Law as to the payment of vows at Jerusalem, should be transferred to Christians, when Christ had pronounced that the time had come when the true worshippers without distinction of place should worship God everywhere in spirit and in truth. If the hired wranglers (324) of the Pope object that the same rule obtains in the redemption of vows, since a remedy or mitigation must not be denied, if any should be too burdensome or grievous, I answer, that men act wickedly, when they wrest to themselves what God has reserved for His own discretion; for neither under the Law of old was it allowable for a mortal man to alter a vow, unless by His permission. If again they object, that the judgment was given to the priests, here their folly is twice refuted; since they cannot shew that they have been appointed judges; nor can they escape from the accusation of temerity, since without any command they pronounce as to this redemption of vows, whereas the priests of old advanced nothing except from God’s mouth, and according to the fixed rule here laid down. <\/p>\n The exception as to the firstlings and the tithes sufficiently proves that some vows were illicit, and such as God repudiates; and therefore that they must not be made indiscriminately, for it would have been a mere work of supererogation to vow to God what He had already made His own; as we have shewn elsewhere, (325) where I have inserted this passage. With respect to what is said of the anathema, it must not be understood generally, since it was not lawful to subject a man to it, unless he were worthy of death. This, then, must be restricted to their enemies, whom they were otherwise at liberty to destroy; a notorious example of which was the city of Jericho, with its inhabitants and spoils. Now, since whatever was brought under this anathema was devoted and accursed, God would have it destroyed, nor does He allow of any compensation. Wherefore they anathematized their fields I do not understand, unless perhaps they wished to expiate some crime whereby pollution was contracted. <\/p>\n (320) “ Sur le quatrieme commandement;” under the fourth commandment.— Fr. <\/p>\n (321) Lat. “ Corum,” from the LXX. translation κόρος <\/p>\n (322) “A field devoted.” — A.V. “ Interdit.” — Fr. <\/p>\n (323) The reference is to Book 3 of the Decretals of Gregory IX. He was Pope from 1227 to 1241; and these decretals form the fifth division of the Papal Canon Law. A section of Book 3, technically styled Titulus 34, is headed “Concerning a vow and its redemption;” and all the eleven chapters of this Titulus relate to the commutation of vows to go on pilgrimage, or on a crusade. The portion especially alluded to by C. in the above remarks was obviously ch. 7, which consists of extracts from an answer of Pope Innocent III. to a Suffragan of the Archbishop of Sens, who had taken a crusader’s vow for the purpose of obtaining access to the Count of Champagne, then in Palestine, and wanted to know whether the Pope would sanction his staying at home, since he had heard that the Count was dead. The Pope replies, that as the cause which had induced him to make his vow no longer existed, he might stay in his diocese; but that he should send to the holy land a sum equal to what would have been the cost of his going, staying, and returning. The notes to the same chapter quote other parts of Innocent’s rescript, in which that Pope said, “Since the Word of God is now fulfilled, saying, The hour shall come and now is, when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship, etc., it may be seen, that not less in your own Church than in the Eastern country, you may advance the deliverance of that country by your pious prayers.” — Corpus Juris Canon. Lugd. 1522, cum licentia. — W. <\/p>\n (324) “ Rabulae.” — Lat. “ Les caphards, qui ont leurs langues a loage pour maintenir la Papaute.” — Fr. <\/p>\n (325) See vol. 1 pp. 478-480, where ver. 26 is commented on, amongst the supplements to the First Commandment. <\/p>\n C. VOWS OF HOUSES AND FIELDS 27:1425 14<\/p>\n And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto Jehovah, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.<\/p>\n 15<\/p>\n And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his.<\/p>\n 16<\/p>\n And if a man shall sanctify unto Jehovah part of the field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the sowing thereof: the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.<\/p>\n 17<\/p>\n If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee, according to thy estimation it shall stand.<\/p>\n 18<\/p>\n But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain unto the year of jubilee; and an abatement shall be made from thy estimation.<\/p>\n 19<\/p>\n And if he that sanctified the field will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him.<\/p>\n 20<\/p>\n And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more:<\/p>\n 21<\/p>\n but the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto Jehovah, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priests.<\/p>\n 22<\/p>\n And if he sanctify unto Jehovah a field which he hath bought, which is not of the field of his possession;<\/p>\n 23<\/p>\n then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation unto the year of jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto Jehovah.<\/p>\n 24<\/p>\n In the year of jubilee the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land belongeth.<\/p>\n 25<\/p>\n And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 27:1425<\/strong><\/p>\n 681.<\/p>\n What is meant by the use of the terms good or bad as in Lev. 27:14<\/span>? Why no right of appeal?<\/p>\n 682.<\/p>\n Doesnt this sound a little ridiculous to buy back your own house? Discuss.<\/p>\n 683.<\/p>\n Please explain in your own words just what is meant in Lev. 27:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 684.<\/p>\n How does the year of jubilee relate to the dedication by a vow of a field?<\/p>\n 685.<\/p>\n How can the field be returned to the owner?<\/p>\n 686.<\/p>\n Does Lev. 27:23<\/span> indicate that the price of the field was to be paid at the time of the vow? Discuss.<\/p>\n 687.<\/p>\n Under what conditions did the field belong permanently to the priest? For what reason?<\/p>\n 688.<\/p>\n What is the point of mentioning the shekel of the sanctuary in Lev. 27:25<\/span>?<\/p>\n PARAPHRASE 27:1425<\/strong><\/p>\n If someone donates his home to the Lord and then wishes to redeem it, the priest will decide its value and the man shall pay that amount plus twenty per cent, and the house will be his again. If a man dedicates any part of his field to the Lord, value it in proportion to its size, as indicated by the amount of seed required to sow it. A section of land that requires ten bushels of barley seed for sowing is valued at twenty-five dollars. If a man dedicates his field in the Year of Jubilee, then the whole estimate shall stand; but if it is after the Year of Jubilee, then the value shall be in proportion to the number of years remaining until the next Year of Jubilee. If the man decides to redeem the field, he shall pay twenty per cent in addition to the priests valuation, and the field will be his again. But if he decides not to redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to someone else (and has given to the Lord his rights to it at the Year of Jubilee), it shall not be returned to him again. When it is freed in the Year of Jubilee, it shall belong to the Lord as a field devoted to Him, and it shall be given to the priests. If a man dedicates to the Lord a field he has bought, but which is not part of his family possession, the priest shall estimate the value until the Year of Jubilee, and he shall immediately give that estimated value to the Lord, and in the Year of Jubilee the field shall return to the original owner from whom it was bought. All the valuations shall be stated in standard money.<\/p>\n COMMENT 27:1425<\/strong><\/p>\n Lev. 27:14-25<\/span> We continue the discussion of S. H. Kellogg: The law regarding the consecration of a mans house unto the Lord by a vow (Lev. 27:14-15<\/span>) is very simple. The priest is to estimate its value, without right of appeal. Apparently, the man might still live in it, if he desired, but only as one living in a house belonging to another; presumably, a rental was to be paid, on the basis of the priests estimation of value, into the sanctuary treasury. If the man wished again to redeem it, then, as in the case of the beast that was vowed, he must pay into the treasury the estimated value of the house, with the addition of one-fifth.<\/p>\n In the case of the sanctifying or dedication of a field by a special vow two cases might arise, which are dealt with in succession. The first case (Lev. 27:16-21<\/span>) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which belonged to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (Lev. 27:22-24<\/span>), that of one which had come to him by purchase. In the former case, the priest was to fix a price upon the field on the basis of fifty shekels for so much land as would be sown with a homerabout eight bushelsof barley. In case the dedication took effect from the year of jubilee, this full price was to be paid into the Lords treasury for the field; but if from a later year in the cycle, then the rate was to be diminished in proportion to the number of years of the jubilee period which might have already passed at the date of the vow. Inasmuch as in the case of a field which had been purchased, it was ordered that the price of the estimation should be paid down to the priest in that day (Lev. 27:23<\/span>) in which the appraisal was made, it would appear as if, in the present case, the man was allowed to pay it annually, a shekel for each year of the jubilee period, or by installments otherwise, as he might choose, as a periodic recognition of the special claim of the Lord upon that field, in consequence of his vow. Redemption of the field from the obligation of the vow was permitted under the condition of the fifth added to the priests estimation, e.g. on the payment of sixty instead of fifty shekels (Lev. 27:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n If, however, without having thus redeemed the field, the man who vowed should sell it to another man, it is ordered that the field, which otherwise would revert to him again in full right of usufruct when the jubilee year came round, should be forfeited; so that When the jubilee came the exclusive right of the field would henceforth belong to the priest, as in the case of a field devoted by the ban. The intention of this regulation is evidently penal; for the field, during the time covered by the vow, was in a special sense the Lords; and the man had the use of it for himself only upon condition of a certain annual payment; to sell it, therefore, during that time, was, in fact, from the legal point of view, to sell property, absolute right in which he had by his vow renounced in favour of the Lord.<\/p>\n The case of the dedication in a vow of a field belonging to a man, not as a paternal inheritance, but by purchase (Lev. 27:22-24<\/span>), only differed from the former in that, as already remarked, immediate payment in full of the sum at which it was estimated was made obligatory; when the jubilee year came, the field reverted to the original owner, according to the law (Lev. 25:28<\/span>). The reason for thus insisting on full immediate payment, in the case of the dedication of a field acquired by purchase, is plain, when we refer to the law (Lev. 25:25<\/span>), according to which the original owner had the right of redemption guaranteed to him at any time before the jubilee. If, in the case of such a dedicated field, any part of the amount due to the sanctuary were still unpaid, obviously this, as a lien upon the land, would stand in the way of such redemption. The regulation of immediate payment is therefore intended to protect the original owners right to redeem the field.<\/p>\n Lev. 27:25<\/span> lays down the general principle that in all these estimations and commutations the shekel must be the shekel of the sanctuary, twenty gerahs to the shekel;words which are not to be understood as pointing to the existence of two distinct shekels as current, but simply as meaning that the shekel must be of full weight, such as only could pass current in transactions with the sanctuary.<\/p>\n FACT QUESTIONS 27:1425<\/strong><\/p>\n 676.<\/p>\n There must have been some very good reasons for vowing away ones house and living in it as a tenant. Could you pose some such circumstance?<\/p>\n 677.<\/p>\n The owner would really never lose the house permanently, but only till Jubilee. What advantage was this?<\/p>\n 678.<\/p>\n There are two cases to be considered in the sanctifying of the land. What were they?<\/p>\n 679.<\/p>\n Are we to understand that a man would live on his own farm and turn all the proceeds to the priests? If not, what is involved?<\/p>\n 680.<\/p>\n How was the price of the land fixed?<\/p>\n 681.<\/p>\n What would happen if the field was sold to another during the time it belonged to the priest? i.e. sold before it was redeemed?<\/p>\n 682.<\/p>\n Explain Lev. 27:25<\/span>.<\/p>\n (14) And when a man shall sanctify his house.<\/strong>That is, devotes it to the service of God by a vow, when it has to be sold and the money used by the authorities for the maintenance and repair of the sanctuary, unless it is required as a dwelling for the priests, or for some other purpose connected with the duties of the Temple. The sale, however, can only take place after the priest has carefully examined it, ascertained and fixed its value, according to the condition of the house. It then can be bought by any one at the price so fixed. The expression house the authorities during the second Temple interpreted to mean not only the building itself but anything belonging to it, or any article of furniture in it which the owner could vow to the sanctuary separately, whilst from the expression his <\/em>house they concluded that the house or the things therein must be absolutely his own, and that he has the exclusive right of disposal. Hence any house or property obtained by fraud neither the defrauder nor the defrauded could vow to the sanctuary, since the property was not properly in the possession of either, and could not be called his. <\/em>Moreover, if anyone vowed a thing by mistake, it could not be claimed for the sanctuary, the vow under such circumstances was regarded as null and void. From these considerations, as well as from the fact that any article that was vowed could be redeemed, it is evident that the Mosaic vow of consecration to the sanctuary imparted no sacramental and inalienable sanctity to the objects themselves in our ecclesiastical sense of consecration. It is not the gift, but its money value which had to be devoted to the holy cause.<\/p>\n HOUSES AND FIELDS VOWED, Lev 27:14-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n Since religious considerations may prompt a person in the greatness of his joy for his deliverance or the extremity of his distress to pledge as an offering to God the substantial interests of life, as houses and lands, the statutes must regulate the manner of executing such a vow.<\/p>\n 14<\/strong>. <\/strong> Sanctify his house <\/strong> Sanctification, when predicated of a thing, signifies to consecrate or set apart to a holy use. The devotion of the heart to the Giver of all good finds expression in acts of self-denial and sacrifice, especially in divesting ourselves of worldly goods, to which we so tenaciously cling. The use of property is a touchstone of character. <\/p>\n As the priest shall estimate <\/strong> A delicate duty is here laid upon the priest, requiring in him not only a good judgment and an acquaintance with values, but also the qualities of impartiality and freedom from avarice, since his decision involves his own financial interests. A conscientious priest would naturally incline to an under estimate, since the money paid as the redemption of the object vowed is in reality a free will offering which might have been innocently withheld by abstaining from the vow.<\/p>\n The Price For Redemption of a House ( Lev 27:14-15<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ). <\/p>\n Lev 27:14-15<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy to Yahweh, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad. As the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. And if he who sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your estimation to it, and it shall be his.” <\/p>\n This is the case where a man vows a house to Yahweh, setting it apart to be holy to Yahweh. He wants Yahweh’s special blessing on his house. He wants to be able to say, this house has been dedicated to Yahweh. Then its value will be assessed by the priest. And if the man wishes it back he must pay that price plus one fifth. Then it will be his again with the joy of knowing that it has been dedicated to Yahweh. But the vow is real. If he does not pay the cost the house goes to the priests for them to sell. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong> Of Houses, Fields, and Firstlings<\/p>\n v. 14. And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord,<\/strong> in a vow devoting its value to the service of Jehovah, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad; as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand,<\/strong> his medium valuation should be final. <\/p>\n v. 15. And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house,<\/strong> desiring to have it back for his own use, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his. <\/p>\n v. 16. And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field of his possession,<\/strong> the price of its valuation being intended for the use of the Sanctuary, as a gift, then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof,<\/strong> according to the amount of seed used in putting the field to grain; an homer<\/strong> (a little over eight bushels) of barley-seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver<\/strong> (about $32. 40). <\/p>\n v. 17. If he sanctify his field from the Year of Jubilee,<\/strong> immediately after its close, when the land was again cultivated, according to thy estimation it shall stand. <\/strong> The valuation once fixed would hold good till the nest Tear of Jubilee, and the one that made the vow would be obliged to make his yearly payments accordingly. <\/p>\n v. 18. But if he sanctify his field after the Jubilee,<\/strong> after some years had elapsed, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the Jubilee, and it shall be abated from thy estimation. <\/strong> In the case of a field of barley, for instance, if twenty years still remained till the nest Tear of Jubilee, then the person concerned would have twenty shekels to pay, plus the one-fifth which was added for the sake of compensation, if it was so arranged. <\/p>\n v. 19. And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. <\/p>\n v. 20. And if he will not redeem the field,<\/strong> by the regular payment of the price of valuation, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more;<\/strong> if a person lapsed in his payments, he forfeited his ownership of the field. <\/p>\n v. 21. But the field, when it goeth out in the Jubilee,<\/strong> out of the hands of the man that bought it in the mean time, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted,<\/strong> and thus the property of the Sanctuary; the possession thereof shall be the priest’s. <\/p>\n v. 22. And if a man sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession,<\/strong> does not belong to the land which is the perpetual inheritance of his family, <\/p>\n v. 23. then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the Year of the Jubilee,<\/strong> the total sum due as the price of redemption; and he shall give thine estimation in that day,<\/strong> make payment of the required sum at once, as a holy thing unto the Lord. <\/strong> This provision obviated the possibility of the land’s being devoted to the Sanctuary and thus being lost to the original owner, who was to regain possession of it in the year of the Jubilee. <\/p>\n v. 24. In the year of the jubilee the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong,<\/strong> and who could not dispose of it absolutely, but only until the year of redemption. <\/p>\n v. 25. And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the Sanctuary,<\/strong> the standard of weight for all money transactions; twenty gerahs shall be the shekel. <\/p>\n v. 26. Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the Lord’s firstling,<\/strong> Exo 13:2-12<\/span>, no man shall sanctify it: these animals could not be used in the event of vows; whether it be ox or sheep; it is the Lord’s. <\/p>\n v. 27. And if it be of an unclean beast,<\/strong> one that could be used neither for sacrifices nor as food for the priests, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it there to; or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation,<\/strong> for the benefit of the Sanctuary. <\/p>\n v. 28. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed,<\/strong> while it is under the vow; every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord,<\/strong> a gift which cannot be redeemed, surrendered to the Lord to be disposed of at His will, irrevocably cut off from all common use. <\/p>\n v. 29. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men,<\/strong> dedicated to the Lord in this special sense, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death;<\/strong> the person was irredeemable, and Jehovah’s sentence of destruction was sure to be carried out. <\/p>\n v. 30. And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s; it is holy unto the Lord,<\/strong> absolutely at His disposal, and Jehovah executed the ban. <\/p>\n v. 31. And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add there to the fifth part thereof,<\/strong> as a penalty or compensation. <\/p>\n v. 32. And concerning the tithe of the herd or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod,<\/strong> that is, under the staff of the shepherd, who keeps a careful record of the animals in his care, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord,<\/strong> the tenth part of the annual increase was set apart for the use of the Lord and His Sanctuary. <\/p>\n v. 33. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it,<\/strong> v. 10; and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. <\/p>\n v. 34. These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,<\/strong> this last Chapter on vows being an appendix to the Book of Leviticus, the types of whose sacrifices point forward to the Lord, our Righteousness; for they were prescribed to the Jews of the Old Covenant because of transgressions, until the promised Seed should come. <\/p>\n These dedications of house and field have the same allusions to spiritual things; and, in a gospel sense, may be supposed to convey this doctrine: that ourselves, and our houses, and all our possessions, should be holy unto the LORD. In allusion to this, it was said that in gospel days, holiness to the LORD should be upon the bells of the horses. Zec 14:20<\/span> .<\/p>\n Lev 27:14 And when a man shall sanctify his house [to be] 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.<\/p>\n Ver. 14. Sanctify his house.<\/strong> ] Consecrate it, or any thing in it, by vow to the Lord. Lev 27:15<\/span> ; Lev 27:13<\/p>\n sanctify = set apart. Hebrew. kadash. See note on “holy”, Exo 3:5. <\/p>\n his: i.e. his own house, and what was therein. <\/p>\n sanctify: Lev 27:21, Lev 25:29-31, Num 18:14, Psa 101:2-7 <\/p>\n as the priest: Lev 27:12 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 27:3 – And thy estimation Num 8:17 – I sanctified<\/p>\n Lev 27:14. When a man shall sanctify his house By a vow; for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole chapter. This is the third case, and was to be regulated by the same law as the last- mentioned. It was to be justly valued by the priest; and if the party chose rather to pay the price than part with the house, he was to submit to the law made in the foregoing case.<\/p>\n Lev 27:14 f. For a house, the same principle holds good; the price is offered to the Temple funds.<\/p>\n 3. Vows concerning other property 27:14-29<\/span><\/p>\n God treated houses (Lev 27:14-15) the same as unclean cattle (cf. Lev 27:11-12). He calculated land value in relationship to the year of jubilee. The people evidently were to pay for land they inherited and then vowed year by year (Lev 27:16-21). However they normally were to pay for land they purchased and then vowed in one payment (Lev 27:22-25). They could not vow first-born animals because these already belonged to God (Lev 27:26-27). Neither could they vow people or objects that had already been dedicated to God for good purposes (e.g., the spoil of Jericho) or bad purposes (e.g., a condemned murderer; Lev 27:28-29).<\/p>\n OF THE VOWING OF HOUSES AND FIELDS<\/p>\n Lev 27:14-25<\/p>\n “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be 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. And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his. And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord part of the field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the sowing thereof: the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver. If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee, according to thy estimation it shall stand. But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain unto the year of jubilee, and an abatement shall be made from thy estimation. And if he that sanctified the field will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him. And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more: but the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priests. And if he sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought, which is not of the field of his possession; then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation unto the year of jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the Lord. In the year of jubilee the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land belongeth. And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.”<\/p>\n The law regarding the consecration of a mans house unto the Lord by a vow (Lev 27:14-15) is very simple. The priest is to estimate its value, without right of appeal. Apparently, the man might still live in it, if he desired, but only as one living in a house belonging to another; presumably, a rental was to be paid, on the basis of the priests estimation of value, into the sanctuary treasury. If the man wished again to redeem it, then, as in the case of the beast that was vowed, he must pay into the treasury the estimated value of the house, with the addition of one fifth. In the case of the “sanctifying” or dedication of a field by a special vow two cases might arise, which are dealt with in succession. The first case (Lev 27:16-21) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which belonged to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (Lev 27:22-24), that of one which had come to him by purchase. In the former case, the priest was to fix a price upon the field on the basis of fifty shekels for so much land as would be sown with a homer – about eight bushels-of barley. In case the dedication took effect from the year of jubilee, this full price was to be paid into the Lords treasury for the field; but if from a later year in the cycle, then the rate was to be diminished in proportion to the number of years of the jubilee period which might have already passed at the date of the vow. Inasmuch as in the case of a field which had been purchased, it was ordered that the price of the estimation should be paid down to the priest “in that day” (Lev 27:23) in which the appraisal was made, it would appear as if, in the present case, the man was allowed to pay it annually, a shekel for each year of the jubilee period, or by instalments otherwise, as he might choose, as a periodic recognition of the special claim of the Lord upon that field, in consequence of his vow. Redemption of the field from the obligation of the vow was permitted under the condition of the fifth added to the priests estimation, e.g., on the payment of sixty instead of fifty shekels (Lev 27:19).<\/p>\n If, however, without having thus redeemed the field, the man who vowed should sell it to another man, it is ordered that the field, which otherwise would revert to him again in full right of usufruct when the jubilee year came round, should be forfeited; so that when the jubilee came the exclusive right of the field would henceforth belong to the priest, as in the case of a field devoted by the ban. The intention of this regulation is evidently penal; for the field, during the time covered by the vow, was in a special sense the Lords; and the man had the use of it for himself only upon condition of a certain annual payment; to sell it, therefore, during that time, was, in fact, from the legal point of view, to sell property, absolute right in which he had by his vow renounced in favour of the Lord. The case of the dedication in a vow of a field belonging to a man, not as a paternal inheritance, but by purchase (Lev 27:22-24), only differed from the former in that, as already remarked, immediate payment in full of the sum at which it was estimated was made obligatory; when the jubilee year came, the field reverted to the original owner, according to the law. {Lev 25:28} The reason for thus insisting on full immediate payment, in the case of the dedication of a field acquired by purchase, is plain, when we refer to the Lev 25:25, according to which the original owner had the right of redemption guaranteed to him at any time before the jubilee. If, in the case of such a dedicated field, any part of the amount due to the sanctuary were still unpaid, obviously this, as a lien upon the land, would stand in the way of such redemption. The regulation of immediate payment is therefore intended to protect the original owners right to redeem the field.<\/p>\n Lev 27:25 lays down the general principle that in all these estimations and commutations the shekel must be “the shekel of the sanctuary,” twenty gerahs to the shekel; -words which are not to be understood as pointing to the existence of two distinct shekels as current, but simply as meaning that the shekel must be of full weight, such as only could pass current in transactions with the sanctuary.<\/p>\n THE “VOW” IN NEW TESTAMENT ETHICS<\/p>\n Not without importance is the question whether the vow, as brought before us here, in the sense of a voluntary promise to God of something not due to Him by the law, has, of right, a place in New Testament ethics and practical life. It is to be observed in approaching this question, that the Mosaic law here simply deals with a religious custom which it found prevailing, and while it gives it a certain tacit sanction, yet neither here or elsewhere ever recommends the practice; nor does the whole Old Testament represent God as influenced by such a voluntary promise, to do something which otherwise He would not have done. At the same time, inasmuch as the religious impulse which prompts to the vow, howsoever liable to lead to an abuse of the practice, may be in itself right, Moses takes the matter in hand, as in this chapter and elsewhere, and deals with it simply in an educational way. If a man will vow, while it is not forbidden, he is elsewhere {Deu 23:22} reminded that there is no special merit in it; if he forbear, he is no worse a man.<\/p>\n Further, the evident purpose of these regulations is to teach that, whereas it must in the nature of the case be a very serious thing to enter into a voluntary engagement of anything to the holy God, it is not to be done hastily and rashly; hence a check is put upon such inconsiderate promising, by the refusal of the law to release from the voluntary obligation, in some cases, upon any terms; and by its refusal, in any case, to release except under the condition of a very material fine for breach of promise. It was thus taught clearly that if men made promises to God, they must keep them. The spirit of these regulations has been precisely expressed by the Preacher: {Ecc 5:5-6} “Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than thou shouldst vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the messenger [of God], that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?” Finally, in the careful guarding of the practice by the penalty attached also to change or substitution in a thing vowed, or to selling that which had been vowed to God, as if it were ones own; and, last of all, by insisting that the full-weight shekel of the sanctuary should be made the standard in all the appraisals involved in the vow, -the law kept steadily and uncompromisingly before the conscience the absolute necessity of being strictly honest with God.<\/p>\n But in all this there is nothing which necessarily passes over to the new dispensation, except the moral principles which are assumed in these regulations. A hasty promise to God, in an inconsiderate spirit, even of that which ought to be freely promised Him, is sin, as much now as then; and, still more, the breaking of any promise to Him when once made. So we may take hence to ourselves the lesson of absolute honesty in all our dealing with God, -a lesson not less needed now than then.<\/p>\n Yet this does not touch the central question: Has the vow, in the sense above defined-namely, the promise to God of something not due to Him in the law-a place in New Testament ethics? It is true that it is nowhere forbidden; but as little is it approved. The reference of our Lord {Mat 15:5-6} to the abuse of the vow by the Pharisees to justify neglect of parental claims does not imply the propriety of vows at present; for the old dispensation was then still in force. The vows of Paul {Act 18:18, Act 21:24-26} apparently refer to the vow of a Nazarite, and in no case present a binding example for us, inasmuch as they are but illustrations of his frequent conformity to Jewish usages in things involving no sin, in which he became a Jew that he might gain the Jews. On the other hand, the New Testament conception of Christian life and duty seems clearly to leave no room for a voluntary promise to God of what is not due, seeing that, through the transcendent obligation of grateful love to the Lord for His redeeming love, there is no possible degree of devotement of self or of ones substance which could be regarded as not already Gods due. “He died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose again.” The vow, in the sense brought before us in this chapter, is essentially correlated to a legal system such as the Mosaic, in which dues to God are prescribed by rule. In New Testament ethics, as distinguished from those of the Old, we must therefore conclude that for the vow there is no logical place.<\/p>\n The question is not merely speculative and unpractical. In fact, we here come upon one of the fundamental points of difference between Romish and Protestant ethics. For it is the Romish doctrine that, besides such works as are essential to a state of salvation, which are by God made obligatory upon all, there are other works which, as Rome regards the matter, are not commanded, but are only made matters of Divine counsel, in order to the attainment, by means of their observance, of a higher type of Christian life. Such works as these, unlike the former class, because not of universal obligation, may properly be made the subject of a vow. These are, especially, the voluntary renunciation of all property, abstinence from marriage, and the monastic life. But this distinction of precepts and counsels, and the theory of vows, and of works of supererogation, which Rome has based upon it, all Protestants have with one consent rejected, and that with abundant reason. For not only do we fail to find any justification for these views in the New Testament, but the history of the Church has shown, with what should be convincing clearness, that, howsoever we may gladly recognise in the monastic communities of Rome, in all ages, men and women living under special vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity, whose purity of life and motive, and sincere devotion to the Lord, cannot be justly called in question, it is none the less clear that, on the whole, the tendency of the system has been toward either legalism on the one hand, or a sad licentiousness of life on the other. In this matter of vows, as in so many things, it has been the fatal error of the Roman Church that, under the cover of a supposed Old Testament warrant, she has returned to “the weak and beggarly elements” which, according to the New Testament, have only a temporary use in the earliest childhood of religious life.<\/p>\n And when a man shall sanctify his house [to be] 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. 14, 15. The case of houses 16 25. The case of lands The vow, as regards its duration, is … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 27:14”<\/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-3593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3593","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=3593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
TEXT 27:1425<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"