Leviticus 27 commentary

LEVITICUS 27 COMMENTARYEDITED BY GLENN PEASE

Redeeming What Is the Lord’s1 The Lord said to Moses,

BARNES, "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.GILL, "And the Lord spake unto Moses,.... 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.

HENRY 1-8, “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 (Isa_32:8), 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.

I. The case is here put of persons vowed to God by a singular vow, Lev_27:2. 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 so consecrated shall be for the Lord, that is, “God will graciously accept the good-will.” Thou didst well that it was in thy heart, 2Ch_6:8. 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 2Ki_12:14, where it is called, in the margin, the money of the souls of his estimation. 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, Lev_27:4. The females were then less esteemed, but not 1

so in Christ; for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Gal_3:28. 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, Lev_27:5. 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, Lev_27:6. 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, Lev_27:7. 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. Paul sets a great value upon the aged women, when he makes them teachers of good things, Tit_2:3. 5. The poor shall be valued according to their ability, Lev_27:8. Something they must pay, that they might learn not to be rash in vowing to God, for he hath no pleasure in fools, Ecc_5:4. Yet not more than their ability, but secundum tenementum - according to their possessions, 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, Luk_21:4.K&D, "The directions concerning vows follow the express termination of the Sinaitic

lawgiving (Lev_26:46), 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. 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, 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; Ecc_5:3-5), and the neglect to keep it to be atoned for with a sin-offering (Lev_5:4). - The objects of a vow might be persons (Lev_27:2-8), cattle (Lev_27:9-13), houses (Lev_27:14, Lev_27:15), and land (Lev_27:16-25), all of which might be redeemed with the exception of sacrificial animals; but not the first-born (Lev_27:26), nor persons and things dedicated to the Lord by the ban (Lev_27:28, Lev_27:29), nor tithes (Lev_27:30-33), 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); and therefore, that when it was redeemed, the money would also be paid to 2

His sanctuary. - (On the vow, see my Archaeologie, §96; Oehler in Herzog's Cycl.)

CALVIN, "Verse 11.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 cherem, the other for the use of the temple, and other exercises of religion. The ,חרםanathema (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. (1 Samuel 1:22.) 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

3

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. COFFMAN, “Verse 1The nature of this last chapter has led some to question the appropriateness of its placement in this context. Leviticus 26:46 appears to be the logical end of the book, and that makes this chapter to appear somewhat as an afterthought. It should be remembered, however, that Moses did not write five books; he wrote only one, not even dividing it into chapters. Such things as chapters, verses, and paragraphs are merely the devices of men, adopted for greater convenience in locating specific passages.Besides that, there are very excellent and logical reasons for the appearance of the instructions in Leviticus 27 just where they are found. Kellogg noted that: "What has preceded in Leviticus has concerned religious duties which were obligatory upon all Israelites, but the regulations of this chapter, on the contrary, have to do with special vows which were not obligatory, but voluntary. `If thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee' (Deuteronomy 23:22)."[1]From this it is easy to see why the instructions regarding vows would not have fit into any other location earlier in Leviticus. Voluntary religious actions have no place whatever among those duties God has commanded his servants to obey. Thus, they appear here last of all, which is exactly where they belong. Of course, they have a supplementary relation to the rest of Leviticus; "But there is no reason to doubt its Mosaic authorship."[2]This whole chapter deals with vows and tithes. The custom of making vows to God is very old, and the Mosaic law recognized the right of an individual to make a vow to God in case he of his own volition decided to do so, but none was required. However, in case a vow was made, God's law required it to be done (paid). Vows were made with reference to: (1) oneself;(2) any member of his family (or all of them);(3) his animals (clean or unclean);

4

(4) his crops;(5) his land (whether rented or owned);(6) his house; or(7) his slaves, in fact, "whatever he had a right over."[3]This chapter falls into this outline:<MONO> I. Redemption of persons vowed, sanctified, or devoted to God. (Leviticus 27:2-8) II. Redemption of animals (Leviticus 27:9-13) III. Redemption of houses (Leviticus 27:14-15) IV. Redemption of lands (Leviticus 27:16-24) V. Redemption not allowed in certain instances (Leviticus 27:25-29) VI. Special instructions regarding tithes (Leviticus 27:30-33) VII. This chapter certified as part of the Sinai covenant (Leviticus 27:34)SIZE>MONO> Except in rare instances, persons who were devoted to God were expected to be redeemed by the payment of certain money. The amount of money required for persons of different age and sex is the subject of the first paragraph. "And Jehovah 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 Jehovah by thy estimation. 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. 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 shall thy estimation 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."

5

"And Jehovah spake unto Moses ..." This, along with Leviticus 27:34, has the effect of tying all of those instructions to the regulations of God already given, making all of them an integral part of the law of Moses, binding terms of the sacred covenant. Once a vow was made, the discharge of it was required. In practical effect, the vowing of a person to God usually meant merely the paying of a certain sum of money into the hands of the priests. These verses give the standard scale for such payments: <MONO> MEN WOMEN Age 20-60 50 shekels 30 shekels Age 5-20 20 shekels 10 shekels Age to 5 years 5 shekels 3 shekels Age above 60 15 shekels 10 shekelsSIZE>MONO> These rules heralded the equality of all people before God. "There was no discrimination as to rank or wealth. The redemption of the High Priest was precisely the same as that of the day-laborer."[4] The price of these redemptions, however, was not nearly as small as they may seem to us. "These figures are very large. The average wage of a worker in Biblical times was about one shekel per month!"[5] The relatively lower evaluation placed upon women should not be construed as any injustice. Back of these assigned values was a calculation of the amount of physical work one could accomplish, and these distinctions were not any different from those seen on every golf course in the world today, where the ladies' tee shortens every green on the course for women. Leviticus 27:8 allowed the priest to reduce the price of redemption for those unable to pay the full price. The mention of the priest here also shows that these calculations of value were the responsibility of the priesthood, despite the fact (Leviticus 27:1) of the instructions being given to "the children of Israel." This mention of "the ability of him that vowed" is a vital factor even today in the matter of Christian giving. "Let every one of you lay by him in store as God has prospered him" (1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV). This establishes the principle that one's giving is not determined solely by the amount of it, but by the relation that amount has to his ability.

6

COKE, “Leviticus 27:1. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying— 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. ELLICOTT, “(1) And the Lord spake unto Moses.—Like the group of enactments contained in Leviticus 25:1 to Leviticus 26:45, 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 (Leviticus 7:16; Leviticus 22:18; Leviticus 22:21; Leviticus 22:23; Leviticus 23:38), 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.EBC, “CONCERNING VOWSLeviticus 27:1-34As 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. {Deuteronomy 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.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

7

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.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" (Leviticus 27:26-27), any "devoted thing" (Leviticus 27:28-29), and the tithe (Leviticus 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.OF THE VOWING OF PERSONSLeviticus 27:1-8"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."First, we have the law (Leviticus 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.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

8

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.The law takes first (Leviticus 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 person’s service would be less; it is therefore fixed (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 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 {Numbers 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.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 (Leviticus 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."PETT, “Chapter 27 Concerning Vows.Little is actually said about the actual necessity for making of vows in the Bible. It was not a requirement of the Law. But many sincere and dedicated people made them out of love for, or gratitude towards, God, or because they desired something deeply and thought that God might be the more ready to hear if they made a vow. It was therefore necessary for them to be controlled and for the consequences of them to be quite clear.The writer in Ecclesiastes said, “Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to utter anything before God, for God is in Heaven and you are on the earth, therefore let your words be few -- when you vow a vow to God, do not

9

defer paying it, for He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed, it is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay’ (Ecclesiastes 5:2-5).One vow that was often made was a vow of dedication to tabernacle service either of the person themselves or of someone over whom they had authority. This might be temporary or permanent. We have an example of such in the baby Samuel (1 Samuel 1:11) who was devoted by his mother to the service of the tabernacle all the days of his life and became a great judge of Israel.The description that follows appears to refer to the price that the person must pay to be released from their vow once they were considered to have completed it. For being under a vow they were holy to Yahweh and they had to be redeemed. In some cases the reference appears to be to a vow made from which a person wishes to be released (e.g. for an animal or a house). The point that is being made is the seriousness of making such a vow. It could not easily or cheaply be rescinded.Or the idea may be that the vow is made deliberately as an indication of the amount the person wishes to give to Yahweh, which he then does in terms of the value of the particular object.This chapter is the icing on the cake of all that has gone before. The offerings of sacrificial animals, reference to the clean and the unclean, to houses and lands, all refer to what men possessed or came in contact with, and were expected under the covenant to deal with in a certain way. But this refers to going that one step further and vowing something to Yahweh. And this would result in a sacrifice on that person’s behalf for the glory of God and the financial benefit of the Sanctuary.Verse 1This Is The Word Of Yahweh (Leviticus 27:1). .Leviticus 27:1‘And Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,’It is once more stressed that we have here a word from Yahweh through Moses. PULPIT, “The final chapter, attached to the book after the concluding exhortation, is a short treatise on persons (Leviticus 27:2-8), animals (Leviticus 27:9-13), houses (Leviticus 27:14, Leviticus 27:15), lauds (Leviticus 27:16-24), vowed to God; and on the commutation of vows.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,

10

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 (Genesis 28:20) or another ( 11:30; 1 Samuel 1:11) 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.If beasts were vowed to the Lord (Leviticus 27:9-13), 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.If houses were vowed to the Lord (Leviticus 27:14, Leviticus 27:15), they became the property of the sanctuary, unless they were redeemed at the valuation set upon them by the priest, with one-fifth additional.If hereditary lands were vowed to the Lord (Leviticus 27:16-21), 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 (Leviticus 27:22-24), the commutation sum was paid down "in that day," 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.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.

2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value,

11

BARNES, "Rather, When a man makes a special vow which concerns thy valuation of persons to Yahweh, if thy estimation shall be of the male, etc. The expression “thy estimation” is addressed either to Moses or to the priest Lev_27:12 : it denoted a legal valuation. The vow of a person was perhaps most frequently made in cases of illness or danger, under the impulse of religions feeling, either in the way of thankfulness for blessings received, or of supplication for something desired. A man might dedicate himself, his wife, his child, or his bondservant. This might have been an old custom; but the Law ordained that he who had taken such a vow should pay a sum of money to the sanctuary, determined according to the age and sex of the person.

CLARKE, "When a man shall make a singular vow - The verse is short and obscure, and may be translated thus: A man who shall have separated a vow, according to thy estimation, of souls unto the Lord; which may be paraphrased thus: He who shall have vowed or consecrated a soul, i. e., a living creature, whether man or beast, if he wish to redeem what he has thus vowed or consecrated, he shall ransom or redeem it according to the priest’s estimation; for the priest shall judge of the properties, qualifications, and age of the person or beast, and the circumstances of the person who has vowed it, and shall regulate the value accordingly; and the money shall be put into his hands for the service of the sanctuary. A vow (says Mr. Ainsworth) is a religious promise made unto the Lord, and for the most part with prayer, and paid with thanksgiving, Num_21:2, Num_21:3; Psa_66:12, Psa_66:14. Vows were either of abstinence, such as are spoken of Numbers 30, and the vow of the Nazarite, Numbers 6; or they were to give something to the Lord, as sacrifices, Lev_7:16, or the value of persons, beasts, houses, or lands, concerning which the law is here given. A man might vow or devote himself, his children, (Lev_27:5, Lev_27:6), his domestics, his cattle, his goods, etc. And in this chapter rules are laid down for the redemption of all these things. But if, after consecrating these things, he refused to redeem them, then they became the Lord’s property for ever. The persons continued all their lives devoted to the service of the sanctuary; the goods were sold for the profit of the temple or the priests; the animals, if clean, were offered in sacrifice; if not proper for sacrifice, were sold, and the price devoted to sacred uses. This is a general view of the different laws relative to vows, mentioned in this chapter.

GILL, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,.... This being an affair which only concerned them; for the Jewish writers say (h), by this phrase, the children of Israel, Gentiles are excluded: when a man shall make a singular vow; an unusual, an uncommon one, a very distinguished one, and even what is wonderful, as the word signifies; as when a man, through uncommon zeal for God and his service, devotes himself, or his children, or his cattle, or his houses or fields, to the Lord: the word "man", the Jewish writers say (i), includes every male, and even a Gentile; yea, it is said all estimate and are estimated, vow and are vowed, priests, and Levites, and Israelites, women and servants (k): the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation: as when a man devoted himself or any

12

that belonged to him to the service of the sanctuary, out of his great zeal for it, as to assist the priests and Levites in the meaner sort of work, as to carry wood and draw water, and sweep the tabernacle, and the like; they were not allowed to do these things, partly because it was not the will of God that any or every Israelite should be employed in such menial service, and partly because there were men appointed for such work, as well as to prevent too great a number of persons in the sanctuary, which would be troublesome, and only stand in one another's way; wherefore, on every devoted person to such service a value or price was set, according to the rules after given, which were to be paid in to the priests for the service of the sanctuary, the repair of the house, &c. see 2Ki_12:4; the word may be rendered, agreeably to the accents, "according to thy estimation of souls (or persons) the vow shall be to the Lord" (l); that is, the price of the person devoted, according to the estimation of the priest, or as settled by the Lord in some following verses, shall be given to him: the word "souls" being used, the Jewish doctors understand it of estimation or value of that on which the soul or life depends; thus, for instance, if a man says, the value of my hand or of my feet be upon me, he says nothing; but if he says, the value of my head or of my liver be upon me, he gives the whole value, i.e. of himself; if he says, the half of my value be upon me, he gives the half of it; but if he says, the value of half of me, he gives the whole value: this is the general rule, that on which the soul or life depends pays the whole value (m); for a man cannot live without his head, or without his liver, or when half of himself is taken away.

JAMISON 1-8, “When a man shall make a singular vow, etc. — Persons have, at all times and in all places, been accustomed to present votive offerings, either from gratitude for benefits received, or in the event of deliverance from apprehended evil. And Moses was empowered, by divine authority, to prescribe the conditions of this voluntary duty.the persons shall be for the Lord, etc. — better rendered thus: - “According to thy estimation, the persons shall be for the Lord.” Persons might consecrate themselves or their children to the divine service, in some inferior or servile kind of work about the sanctuary (1Sa_3:1). In the event of any change, the persons so devoted had the privilege in their power of redeeming themselves; and this chapter specifies the amount of the redemption money, which the priest had the discretionary power of reducing, as circumstances might seem to require. Those of mature age, between twenty and sixty, being capable of the greatest service, were rated highest; young people, from five till twenty, less, because not so serviceable; infants, though devotable by their parents before birth (1Sa_1:11), could not be offered nor redeemed till a month after birth; old people were valued below the young, but above children; and the poor - in no case freed from payment, in order to prevent the rash formation of vows - were rated according to their means.

K&D 2-8, “The vowing of persons. - “If any one make a special vow, souls shall be to the Lord according to thy valuation.” ֶנֶדר ִהְפִליא does not mean to dedicate or set apart a vow, but to make a special vow (see at Lev_22:21). The words ְּבֶעְרְּכ, “according to thy (Moses') valuation,” it is more simple to regard as an apodosis, so as to supply to ָה ַליהthe substantive verb ִּתְהֶייָנה, than as a fuller description of the protasis, in which case the

13

apodosis would follow in Lev_27:3, and the verb ַיְקִּדיׁש would have to be supplied. But whatever may be the conclusion adopted, in any case this thought is expressed in the words, that souls, i.e., persons, were to be vowed to the Lord according to Moses' valuation, i.e., according to the price fixed by Moses. This implies clearly enough, that whenever a person was vowed, redemption was to follow according to the valuation. Otherwise what was the object of valuing them? Valuation supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (i.e., Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of redeeming, buying off the person vowed to the Lord, and the fulfilment of the vow could only have consisted in the payment into the sanctuary of the price fixed by the law.

(Note: Saalschütz adopts this explanation in common with the Mishnah. Oehler is wrong in citing 1Sa_2:11, 1Sa_2:22, 1Sa_2:28 as a proof of the opposite. For the dedication of Samuel did not consist of a simple vow, but was a dedication as a Nazarite for the whole of his life, and Samuel was thereby vowed to service at the sanctuary, whereas the law says nothing about attachment to the sanctuary in the case of the simple vowing of persons. But because redemption in the case of persons was not left to the pleasure or free-will of the person making the vow as in the case of material property, no addition is made to the valuation price as though for a merely possible circumstance.)Lev_27:1-3

This was to be, for persons between twenty and thirty years of age, 50 shekels for a man and 30 for a woman; for a boy between 5 and 20, 20 shekels, for a girl of the same age 10 shekels; for a male child from a month to five years 5 shekels, for a female of the same age 3 shekels; for an old man above sixty 15 shekels, for an old woman of that age 10; the whole to be in shekels of the sanctuary (see at Exo_30:15). The valuation price was regulated, therefore, according to capacity and vigour of life, and the female sex, as the weaker vessel (1Pe_3:7), was only appraised at half the amount of the male.

COKE, “Verse 2-3Leviticus 27:2-3. When a man shall make a singular vow, &c.— Or, it may be read, When any one shall set apart to the Lord a vow, according to such valuation of persons as thou shalt fix, and thy valuation shall be of a male from twenty years old to sixty years old; then thou shalt set the value at fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. 4. But if it be a female, the rate shall be, &c. The phrase in the original shall separate, or set apart, a vow, signifies to separate any thing from a common to a sacred use by solemn promise; for vows were religious promises made to God, for obtaining some blessing, or for deliverance out of some danger; and were accompanied with prayer, and paid with thanksgiving, Numbers 21:2-3. Psalms 66:13-14. Eceles. Leviticus 5:4. Philo calls this the great vow, ευχη μεγαλη, as proceeding from a singular devotion; whereby a man dedicates, not his cattle or goods, but himself or children, his greatest possessions, to the service of the tabernacle, to minister to the priests in the necessary offices thereof. Any souls or persons thus devoted to the Lord, were to be redeemed according to the rate, or valuation, here appointed: fifty shekels, i.e. about 5£. 15s. (reckoning the shekel at

14

about 2s. 4d.) were to be the valuation of a man from twenty to sixty years old: women are valued at a lower rate, because their services for the tabernacle were of less utility.—Houbigant renders the second verse, If any man shall vow a vow to the Lord, concerning souls of which valuation is to be made: (i.e. in order to redemption). This seems the most just interpretation, and the learned reader will find it largely defended in Houbigant's note on that place.ELLICOTT, “ (2) Shall make a singular vow.—Better, shall consecrate a vow. (See Leviticus 22:21.) According to the interpretation of this phrase which obtained during the second Temple it denotes shall pronounce a vow. Hence the ancient Chaldee Versions render it, “shall distinctly pronounce a vow.” Accordingly, no vow mentally made or conceived was deemed binding. It had to be distinctly pronounced in words. The form of the vow is nowhere given in the Bible. Like many other points of detail, the wording of it was left to the administrators of the law. They divided vows into two classes: (1) Positive vows, by which a man bound himself to consecrate for religious purposes his own person, those members of his family over whom he had control, or any portion of his property, and for this kind of vow the formula was “Behold I consecrate this to the Lord”; and (2) Negative vows, by which he promised to abstain from enjoying a certain thing, for which the formula was, “Such and such a thing be unlawful to me for so many days, weeks, or for ever.”The persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation.—Better, souls to the Lord according to thy estimation., that is, the vow consists of consecrating persons to the Lord with the intention of redeeming by money the persons thus consecrated, according to the valuation put upon them by Moses. This part of the verse explains the nature of the vow, and takes it for granted that by consecrating a human being to God by a vow is meant to substitute the money value for him. By the suffix, “thy estimation,” Moses is meant, to whom these regulations are here Divinely communicated, and upon whom it devolved in the first instance to carry out the law. (See Leviticus 5:15; Leviticus 5:18.) During the second Temple any Israelite could estimate the money value of a person thus vowed to the Lord.TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:2 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.Ver. 2. When a man shall make a singular vow.] Votum eximium, as Vatablus renders it, a personal, particular, voluntary vow; which, drawn by some peculiar reason, a man promiseth to God of his own accord. It is a binding of one’s self to God by a holy and religious promise, to do or not to do something lawful, possible, useful for our increase in godliness. As here of persons, afterwards of things: all which might be redeemed, under such exception as the law provideth, by the estimation of the priest for certain shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary: this was double to the ordinary shekel. The aim and intent of these personal vows was, say some, that the price of their redemption might be employed

15

either for the maintenance of the priests, [Numbers 18:14] or for the repair of the sanctuary. [2 Kings 12:4-5] Neither by such vows do we cast any new snares upon ourselves, but rather a new tie to the payment of an old debt.PETT, “Verses 2-8The Price of Redemption from a Vow (Leviticus 27:2-8).Leviticus 27:2“Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the persons shall be for Yahweh by your estimation.”When anyone comes to the end of their vow a price must be paid for their release. They have been dedicated to the service of Yahweh. They cannot therefore just withdraw. The purpose of this was in order that people might recognise the seriousness of such a vow. It involved a physical cost. This redemption price must be estimated by the priests in accordance with the following rules. Thus when any person made such a vow they were declaring their readiness to meet that cost. They were making a sacrificial gift to Yahweh. But because of that it was necessary for them to know exactly how much it was going to cost.We make our vows to God so easily, for we feel that we can forget them at any time. But this section warns us that God does not forget and a price has to be paid, although we may be unaware of it at the time. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:2When a man shall make a singular vow,—literally, when a man shall separate a vow, that is, make a special vow (see Numbers 6:2)—the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation; 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.

3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels[a] of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel[b]; 16

CLARKE, "From twenty years old even unto sixty-fifty shekels - A man from twenty to sixty years of age, if consecrated to the Lord by a vow, might be redeemed for fifty shekels, which, at 3s. each, amounted to 7£. 10s. sterling.

GILL, "And thy estimation shall be,.... The estimation of the man himself that vowed, or of the priest for him, was not left to be made by either of them at their pleasure, but was to be made according to the following rules, in proportion to the age a person was of to be estimated: of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old: the account begins with these, because men of an age from the one to the other are fittest for labour, and therefore to be set at the highest price, as they are in the next clause: even that estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary; a shekel was about half a crown of our money, or somewhat less, so that fifty of these amounted to about six pounds: these shekels were to be of the full weight, according to the standard that was kept in the sanctuary, and were the highest price that was set upon any; and this was paid equally by all of the same age, whether rich or poor: hence it is said,"in estimations there is nothing less than one shekel, nor more than fifty (n).'' ELLICOTT, “ (3) And thy estimation shall be of the male.—Better, Then thy estimation of the male shall be (as follows).From twenty years old even unto sixty years old.—The estimation not only begins with the male, who is the most important person, but takes special notice of his age. The years here specified represent the prime of his life, and he is to be rated not according to his rank or position, but according to the value of his services.Fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.—Whether the person who makes this vow makes it with regard to himself, or whether he dedicates by it any other member of the community, he is to pay fifty silver shekels, which in our currency would be £6 9s. 2d., if the man thus consecrated is between twenty and sixty years of age. This sum he is to pay, whether rich or poor. For this sum he was liable, during the second Temple, if he said “My value be upon me,” or “This man’s value be upon me,” or “Such a man’s value be upon me.”TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:3 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.Ver. 3. Fifty shekels of silver.] This was the greatest rate, because people are then in their prime; and yet no very great one, lest they should think much to vow, or

17

perform to the Lord their God.PETT, “Leviticus 27:3“And your estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even to sixty years old, even your estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.”The redemption price of a male between twenty and sixty was fifty shekels of silver. That was a considerable price, much higher than that for a slave at this time, which was about twenty shekels. Only the relatively wealthy could so dedicate themselves or their offspring to Yahweh. But they would feel the cost was worth it for the special position it had put them in before him. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:3-7The sum at which a man between twenty and sixty years of age was to be redeemed was fifty shekels, equal to f6 9s. 2d.; a woman, thirty shekels, or f3 17s. 6d.; a youth between five and twenty years of age, twenty shekels, or f2 11s. 8d.; a maiden between the same ages, ten shekels, or £ 5s. 10d.; a boy between one month and five years, five shekels, or 12s. 11d.; a girl between the same ages, three shekels, or 7s. 9d.; a man above sixty years, fifteen shekels, or f1 18s. 9d.; a woman of the same age, ten shekels, or f1 5s. 10d.

4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels[c];

BARNES, "The relative values of the persons appear to be regulated according to an estimate of the probable value of their future work:

Ages Male FemaleFrom a month to five years of age 5 shekels 3 shekelsFrom five years to twenty of age 20 shekels 10 shekelsFrom forty years to sixty of age 50 shekels 30 shekels

18

Sixty years of age and older: 15 shekels 10 shekels

As regards the shekel of the sanctuary, see Exo_38:24 note.

CLARKE, "And if it be a female - The woman, at the same age, vowed unto the Lord, might be redeemed for thirty shekels, 4£. 10s. sterling, a little more than one half of the value of the man; for this obvious reason, that a woman, if employed, could not be of so much use in the service of the sanctuary as the man, and was therefore of much less value.

GILL, "And if it be a female,.... That is, of the same age, full twenty years of age, and not more than sixty: then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels; about three pounds ten shillings of our money, the price of a servant, Exo_21:32; the reason of this difference of estimation between a man and a woman is, because the woman is the weaker vessel, and her labour and service of less importance and worth, such as spinning, washing, &c.ELLICOTT, “ (4) And if it be a female . . . thirty shekels.—As the woman is the weaker vessel, and her labour is of less value, if she vows herself or dedicates by a vow any other one of her own sex to the sanctuary, she is to pay thirty shekels, or £3 17s. 6d., provided she is within the above-named limits of age. This was the value of a slave (Exodus 21:32), and is the price at which Christ was sold (Matthew 27:9). It is supposed that under this provision Jephtha might have redeemed his daughter whom he unwittingly vowed to the Lord (Judges 11:30). (See, however, Leviticus 27:29.)TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:4 And if it [be] a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.Ver. 4. And if it be a female.] She is set at a lower valuation then the male, because less able for any laborious or rational employment.PETT, “Leviticus 27:4“And if it be a female, then your estimation shall be thirty shekels.”For a female between these ages the redemption price was considerably lower. Women performed services at the door of the tent of meeting (Exodus 38:8; 1 Samuel 2:22), but they could not fulfil the heavy work which the men would do. Nevertheless they too delighted in seeking to serve Yahweh, and fulfilling a voluntary time of service for Him, from which they could be released with a sense of

19

joy in having served so close to His presence and having contributed to His worship.

5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels[d] and of a female at ten shekels[e];

CLARKE, "From five years old - The boy that was vowed might be redeemed for twenty shekels, 3£. sterling; the girl, for ten shekels, just one half, 1£. 10s.

GILL, "And if it be from five years old, even unto to twenty years old,.... Not that one of five years old is supposed to vow or to make an estimation, but one grown up, that says, the estimation of this little one, who is five years of age, be upon me; and such an one was bound to pay the value of him, which is as follows: then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels; which were for the one above two pounds, and for the other more than one pound; these were valued at a less price than the former, partly because, generally speaking, there are more die between the age of five and the age of twenty years than between twenty and sixty; and partly because within that time they are not capable of so much work and service as in the latter; and it may be observed, that the females of this age are not valued in proportion to the females of the other; the estimation of these being just half that of the males, whereas that of the other is more than half; the reason is, that women above twenty years of age, their service bears, a better proportion to that of men, than that of young women to young men under twenty.ELLICOTT, “ (5) If it be from five years old, even unto twenty years.—From the fact that a child of five years is here mentioned it is evident that the vows hero spoken of are not simply those which a man makes with regard to his own person, but which he also makes about others, since a vow involving the payment of a considerable sum of money on the part of a child was of no force. The case, therefore, here contemplated is of a father or mother vowing the male child unto the Lord or of any other person taking upon himself to pay the value of such and such a child to the sanctuary, This is still more manifest from the following verse.

20

The male twenty shekels.—As the services of a boy at the age here specified are of much less value, the parent, or anyone else, who vows him to the sanctuary is to pay £2 11s. 8d.The female ten shekels.—For the girl, whose value is proportionately less, the vower is to pay £1 5s. 10d.; being the same value put on an old woman. (See Leviticus 27:7.)TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:5 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.Ver. 5. From five years old.] Childhood and youth is vanity. There is a bundle of folly in a child’s heart. [Proverbs 22:15] The same Greek word νηπιος, signifieth a fool, and a child. And the Hebrew word used to signify youth, [Ecclesiastes 11:10] signifieth blackness or darkness, to note, that youth is a dark and dangerous age. Few Macariuses to be found, who, for his gravity in youth, was surnamed παιδαριογερων, the old young man. (a)PETT, “Leviticus 27:5“And if it be from five years old even to twenty years old, then your estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.”Others would dedicate their children to that service for a time. However to redeem someone between five years old and twenty years old the price was twenty shekels for a male and ten shekels for a female. The service from which they were being redeemed was considerably less than that for an adult person. But they had known the joy of Yahweh’s service.

6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels[f] of silver and that of a female at three shekels[g] of silver;

CLARKE, "A month old - The male child, five shekels, 15s., the female, three 21

shekels, 9s. Being both in comparative infancy, they were nearly of an equal value. None were vowed under a month old: the first-born being always considered as the Lord’s property, could not be vowed, see Lev_27:26.

GILL, "And if it be from a month old even unto five years old,.... That is, if a man devotes his child to the Lord within such an age, and says, the estimation of this my son or my daughter be upon me, then he was to pay the value, as next directed; for one under a month old no estimation was to be made: the Jews say,"one less than a mouth old may be vowed, but not estimated (o):" then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver; somewhat more than ten shillings: and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver; about seven shillings, which is the least value put on any; and though the lives of male or female at this age are equally uncertain, and the service of either of little worth when near the full time fixed; yet the preference is given to the male, as being of the more perfect kind, and its life generally most desirable. ELLICOTT, “ (6) From a month old even unto five years old.—That is, if a parent, or any other person, devotes his or anyone else’s child to the sanctuary, he is obliged to be redeemed according to the prescribed valuation. The formula used in such a case during the second Temple was, “Behold the estimation of this my boy, or this my girl, or of that boy or that girl, be upon me.”The male five shekels of silver.—As at this tender age the service of a child is not of much value, the vower is to pay for a boy 12s. 11d.The female . . . three shekels of silver.—The girl being proportionately less valuable, is to be redeemed at 7s. 9d.TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:6 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, and for the female thy estimation [shall be] three shekels of silver.Ver. 6. From a month old.] If his parents have made a vow concerning him.PETT, “Leviticus 27:6“And if it be from a month old even to five years old, then your estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female your estimation shall be three shekels of silver.”For those between a month old and five years old the redemption prices was five shekels for a male and three for a female. The service that they could perform was

22

minimal, but parents clearly thought that it would benefit their children in knowing God more closely.

7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels[h] and of a female at ten shekels.

CLARKE, "Sixty years old - The old man and the old woman, being nearly past labor, were nearly of an equal value; hence the one was estimated at fifteen shekels, 2£. 5s., the other at ten shekels, 1£. 10s. This was about the same ratio as that of the children, Lev_27:5, and for the same reason.GILL, "And if it be from sixty years old and above,.... When man is almost past his labour, and it is high time to leave off business: if it be a male, then thy estimation shall between shekels; about one pound fifteen shillings: and for the female ten shekels; about one pound three shillings; it may be observed that there is not the disproportion between a man and a woman in old age as in youth, with respect to the estimation of them; the reason of which is, because there is but little difference in their labour and service; nay, sometimes the woman is most useful and serviceable; for when a man, through age, is quite worn out and his labour gone, an older woman is capable of managing the affairs of the family, and is of great use and service, either by directing and advising, or by doing: so Jarchi observes, when persons come to old age, a woman is nearly to be reckoned as a man, and quotes a proverb of theirs, an old man in a house is a broken potsherd in the house (some interpret the word, a snare or stumbling block, that is in the way); an old woman in a house is a treasure in a house, a good sign in a house (p), of great use in the management of the affairs of the family. ELLICOTT, “ (7) From sixty years old and above.—Being almost past labour, the old man is next in value to the child.A male . . . fifteen shekels.—The old man is therefore to be redeemed at £1 18s. 9d.The female ten shekels.—The old woman, from sixty and upwards, is estimated at

23

exactly the same value as the girl from five to twenty years old (see Leviticus 27:5), and hence is to be redeemed at £1 5s. 10d. It will be seen that the disproportion between a man and a woman is not the same in old age as in youth. The authorities during the second Temple account for it by adducing the adage, “An old man in the house is always in the way; an old woman in the house is a treasure, she manages all household affairs.”TRAPP, “Verse 7Leviticus 27:7 And if [it be] from sixty years old and above; if [it be] a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.Ver. 7. And if it be from sixty years.] The rate of old age is less than of youth, and more than of childhood.PETT, “Leviticus 27:7“And if it be from sixty years old and upward; if it be a male, then your estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.”But in the case of someone over sixty the redemption price was fifteen shekels for a male and ten for a female. Their ability to serve was limited. But they too would rejoice in having been able to be so close to God.

8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford.

BARNES, "If he be poorer than thy estimation - Too poor (to pay) thy valuation. Compare Lev_27:7, Lev_27:11.GILL, "But if he be poorer than thy estimation,.... If he is so poor that he is not able to pay the value that, is set upon him, according to the rules before given:

24

then he shall present himself before the priest; that has made the estimation, according to the above directions, observing the difference of years, and of male and female; but if a person could not pay the said sums that were appointed, he might apply to the priest, and tell his case: and the priest shall value him; put a price upon him he is able to pay, as follows: according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him; he was to examine into his circumstances, and as they appeared to him he was to put a value on him, which was to be paid, but not less than, a shekel; for if he could not pay that, it was to remain as a debt until he could (q); and it was the ability of him that made the vow that was to be inquired into, and according to which the estimation was to be made, and not of him that was vowed: so it is said in the Misnah,"ability is regarded in the vower, and years in the vowed, and estimations in the estimated, and according to the tithe of the estimation: ability in the vower, how? a poor man that estimates a rich man, pays the value of a poor man; and a rich man that estimates a poor man, pays the value of a rich man: if he is poor and afterwards becomes rich, or rich and afterwards poor, he pays the price of a rich man (r);''but the sense which Jarchi gives is, that a priest in such a case was to judge according to what a man has, and so order him to pay, but was to leave him so as he might live, a bed and bolster, and working tools, and if he had an ass he might leave him that.

K&D, "Lev_27:8But if the person making the vow was “poor before thy valuation,” i.e., too poor to be able to pay the valuation price fixed by the law, he was to be brought before the priest, who would value him according to the measure of what his hand could raise (see Lev_5:11), i.e., what he was able to pay. This regulation, which made it possible for the poor man to vow his own person to the Lord, presupposed that the person vowed would have to be redeemed. For otherwise a person of this kind would only need to dedicate himself to the sanctuary, with all his power for work, to fulfil his vow completely.

COKE, “Leviticus 27:8. If he be poorer than thy estimation— If he be too poor to pay the rate. If the man who vowed was unable to pay the affixed price of redemption, he was to represent his case to the priests, who were to rate him according to his ability; or, as it is in the original, according as his hand can find who vowed; an expression which may signify, either that the valuation was to be made according to what a man could do, or earn; or according to what he possessed. By referring to Seneca, lib. i. Controv. n. 2. and Alex. ab Alex. Dic. Geneal. lib. iii. c. 22. the curious reader will see how very remarkably the regulation of vows was vested in the Roman pontiffs and priests. ELLICOTT, “ (8) But if he be poorer than thy estimation.—That is, if the person who makes the vow possesses less than the specified legal rates required to redeem it.

25

Then he shall present himself before the priest.—The man pleading poverty is to appear before the priest, who is to examine into his circumstances, and tax him accordingly. The minimum, however, which he was obliged to pay during the second Temple was one shekel. If anyone neglected paying his vows to the Temple treasury, his goods were seized by the officials. This, however, had to be done in such a manner as not to deprive the man of his means of subsistence. The bailiffs were obliged to leave a mechanic two sets of tools, a husbandman a yoke of oRAPP, “Leviticus 27:8 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.Ver. 8. But if he be poorer.] Indulged he shall be, but not exempted. Vows, in things lawful and possible, must be performed, as we can at least. If rashly made, that rashness must be repented of, but the vow, if otherwise lawful, must be kept, without delay or diminution, to the utmost of our power. Men may not play with vows, [Ecclesiastes 5:3-4 Psalms 76:11] as monkeys with their collars, which they can slip at pleasure. To vow is voluntary, to pay is necessary. And yet what more common in the world than shipmen’s vows? As he in Erasmus, (a) who in a storm promised his saint a picture of wax as big as St Christopher, but when he came to shore, would not give a tallow candle. d a donkey driver his donkey. They were bound to leave food sufficient for thirty days, and bedding for twelve months; and they could never seize the man’s sandals or phylacteries, or his wife’s property, or his children’s clothes.

PETT, “Leviticus 27:8“But if he be poorer than your 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.”However, God did not want men to miss blessing because they were too poor. If the man, or the person who vowed him, was too poor to pay these redemption prices then the priest could value him at a lower figure in accordance with their ability to pay. Thus no one was to be kept from making a vow because he could not afford it, and no one had to continue a vow unwillingly, for a price was payable for release.

9 “‘If what they vowed is an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the Lord, such an 26

animal given to the Lord becomes holy.

GILL, "And if it be a beast whereof men bring an offering to the Lord,.... That is, it such a creature is devoted, which is of that kind which are used in sacrifice to the Lord, such as bullocks, sheep, goats, rams, and lambs: all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy; shall be set apart to sacred uses, and not applied to profane or common uses, but either were for the use of the altar or of the priests; or the price of them for the repair of the sanctuary, according as they were devoted.

HENRY 9-13, “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, Lev_27:9, Lev_27:10. 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, Pro_20:25. And to this that rule of charity seems to allude (2Co_9:7), Every man, according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give. 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, Lev_27:11-13. 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.

JAMISON 9-13, “if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord — a clean beast. After it had been vowed, it could neither be employed in common purposes nor exchanged for an equivalent - it must be sacrificed - or if, through some discovered blemish, it was unsuitable for the altar, it might be sold, and the money applied for the sacred service. If an unclean beast - such as an ass or camel, for instance, had been vowed, it was to be appropriated to the use of the priest at the estimated value, or it might be redeemed by the person vowing on payment of that value, and the additional fine of a fifth more.

K&D 9-10, “When animals were vowed, of the cattle that were usually offered in sacrifice, everything that was given to Jehovah of these (i.e., dedicated to Him by vowing) was to be holy and not changed, i.e., exchanged, a good animal for a bad, or a bad one for a good. But if such an exchange should be made, the animal first dedicated

27

and the one substituted were both to be holy (Lev_27:9, Lev_27:10). The expression “it shall be holy” unquestionably implies that an animal of this kind could not be redeemed; but if it was free from faults, it was offered in sacrifice: if, however, it was not fit for sacrifice on account of some blemish, it fell to the portion of the priests for their maintenance like the first-born of cattle (cf. Lev_27:33).

COFFMAN, “Verse 9"And if it be a beast, whereof men offer an oblation to Jehovah, all that any man giveth of such unto Jehovah shall be holy. 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 both it and that for which it was changed shall be holy. And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer an oblation unto Jehovah, then he shall set the beast before the priest; and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou the priest valuest it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto thy estimation."Leviticus 27:9 forbade any substitutions. Once a beast was designated in a vow, the decision regarding the animal was irrevocable. In case a substitute was offered, the penalty required that both animals be forfeited. In the matter of unclean beasts (Leviticus 27:11), although these could not be sacrificed; "But they could be used by the priest, or sold for profit."[6] In case the giver wanted to redeem the unclean beast, he could do so by paying the estimated value plus twenty percent.Leviticus 27:11 appears to forbid any haggling over price. Like the decisions of an umpire in a baseball game, the priest's evaluations were not subject to challenge. "As the priest valuest it, so shall it be!"COKE, “Leviticus 27:9. And if it be a beast, &c.— A record kind of things vowed to God, are beasts; which being of two sorts, clean and unclean, it is provided, first, with respect to clean beasts, that every individual of this sort vowed to God, should be applied according to the direct intention of the vow: it was to be, and to be treated as holy. And, secondly, with respect to unclean beasts, when such were devoted, they were to be valued by the priests; and then the owner had liberty either to leave them to the priests' disposal, or to redeem them, by paying the rate set upon them, with a fifth part more, Leviticus 27:13. The case was the same with regard to houses and fields, the other kinds of things devoted and spoken of in the subsequent verses; see Leviticus 27:15; Leviticus 27:19.ELLICOTT, “ (9) And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering.—That is, if

what a man vows consists of sacrificial quadrupeds, viz., bullocks, sheep, or goats.Shall be holy.—That is, must not be redeemed at all. They were delivered to the sanctuary: they were sold by the priests to those Israelites who required them as sacrifices for the altar, and the money expended in the maintenance of the service.

28

TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:9 And if [it be] a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that [any man] giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy.Ver. 9. Giveth,] i.e., Consecrateth unto God by his vow; and so, giveth him of his own. [1 Chronicles 29:14]EBC, “OF THE VOWING OF DOMESTIC ANIMALSLeviticus 27:9-13"And if it be a beast, whereof men offer an oblation unto the Lord, all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy. 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 both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. And if it be any unclean beast of which they do not offer an oblation unto the Lord, then lie shall set the beast before the priest: and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou the priest valuest it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto thy estimation."This next section concerns the vowing to the Lord of domestic animals (Leviticus 27:9-13). If the animal thus dedicated to the Lord were such as could be used in sacrifice, then the animal itself was taken for the sanctuary, service, and the vow was unalterable and irrevocable. If, however, the animal vowed was "any unclean beast," then the priest (Leviticus 27:12) was to set a price upon it, according to its value; for which, we may infer, it was to be sold and the proceeds devoted to the sanctuary.In this case, the person who had vowed the animal was allowed to redeem it to himself again (Leviticus 27:13) by payment of this estimated price and one-fifth additional, a provision which was evidently intended to be of the nature of a fine, and to be a check upon the making of rash vows.PETT., “Verses 9-13The Price For Redemption of a Beast (Leviticus 27:9-13).Leviticus 27:9-10“And if it be a beast, of which men offer an oblation to Yahweh, all that any man gives of such to Yahweh shall be holy. 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 both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy.”Any clean and sacrificial beast vowed to Yahweh was holy. Once offered it could not be changed, whether for better of for worse. If one was replaced then both became

29

holy to Yahweh. This being the case we would assume that the purpose of replacing it was in order to offer something more worthy of Yahweh. Yahweh will receive two offerings instead of one. But neither can be redeemed. One example of such would be a whole burnt offering. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:9, Leviticus 27:10In 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.

10 They must not exchange it or substitute a good one for a bad one, or a bad one for a good one; if they should substitute one animal for another, both it and the substitute become holy.

CLARKE, "He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, etc. -Whatever was consecrated to God by a vow, or purpose of heart, was considered from that moment as the Lord’s property; to change which was impiety; to withhold it, sacrilege. Reader, hast thou ever dedicated thyself, or any part of thy property, to the service of thy Maker? If so, hast thou paid thy vows? Or hast thou altered thy purpose, or changed thy offering? Has he received from thy hands a bad for a good? Wast thou not vowed and consecrated to God in thy baptism? Are his vows still upon thee? Hast thou “renounced the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh?” Dost thou feel thyself bound “to keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?” Was not this thy baptismal covenant? And hast thou renounced It? Take heed! God is not mocked: that which thou sowest, thou shalt also reap. If thou rob God of thy heart, he will deprive thee of his heaven.

GILL, "He shall not alter it nor change it,.... Some think these two words signify the same, but Abarbinel (s) makes them different; according to him, to "alter" is for one of another kind, as one of the herd for one of the flock, or the contrary; and to "change"

30

for one of the same kind: a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; or, as the Targum of Jonathan,"that which is perfect for that which has a blemish in it, or what has a blemish in it for that which is perfect;''a change might not be made neither for the better nor for the worse, but the creature devoted was to be taken as it was; if not fit for sacrifice it was to be sold, and its price put to other uses; for, as Abarbinel (t) observes, whatsoever was devoted to sacred use was never to be put to any profane one; and this was also to teach men not to be hasty and fickle in such things, but to consider well what they did, and abide by it; for if such alterations and changes could be admitted of, a man after he had vowed might through covetousness repent, and bring a bad one instead of a good one, or, under pretence of bringing a good one instead of a bad one, might bring a bad one and say it was good, as Bechai (u) observes; even one worse than he had brought, thinking to impose upon the ignorance of the priest; and indeed if he was sincere in it, and had a mind to bring a better than what he had vowed, it was not allowed of; if he made any change, though it was for the better, he was to be beaten, as Maimonides (w) affirms: and if he shall at all change beast for beast; whether of the same or of a different kind, or whether for better or worse: then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy: both of them were to be the Lord's, and appropriated to sacred use, of one sort or another, either for sacrifice or for the priests family, or the price of it for the repairs of the sanctuary. ELICOTT, “(10) He shall not alter it, nor change it.—The identical animal vowed is to be delivered; no change whatever, even if it is in the substitution of a better for an inferior animal, is permitted. The stress laid upon this part of the enactment is indicated by the employment here of two verbs of the same import. If he who vows does change the one he dedicated to the Lord, both the animals, the one he originally vowed and the one he substituted for it, are alike holy, and must be delivered to the sanctuary.TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:10 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.Ver. 10. Then it and the exchange thereof.] For a punishment of his instability and lightness.

11 If what they vowed is a ceremonially unclean animal—one that is not acceptable as an offering 31

to the Lord—the animal must be presented to the priest,

GILL, "And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the Lord,.... Any creature, excepting a dog, the price of which was not to be brought into the house of the Lord; besides oxen, sheep, goats, rams, and lambs; though some understand it even of such that have blemishes on them, and so not fit to be offered unto the Lord; so Jarchi and others (x): then he shall present the beast before the priest; to be viewed, examined, and judged of as to its worth, and a value put upon it, that it might be sold or redeemed, as no other but a beast might; so it is observed birds, wood, frankincense, and ministering vessels, have no redemption, for it is only said a beast (y).

K&D 11-12, “Every unclean beast, however, - an ass for example, - which could not be offered in sacrifice, was to be placed before the priest for him to value it “between good and bad,” i.e., neither very high as if it were good, nor very low as if it were bad, but at a medium price; and it was to be according to this valuation, i.e., to be worth the value placed upon it (ַהֹּכֵהן ְּכֶעְרְּכ according to thy, the priest's, valuation), namely, when sold for the good of the sanctuary and its servants.

CALVIN, "11.And if it be any unclean beast. Moses now, in the second place, treats of brute animals; which God commands to be sacrificed to Him, if they are suitable for it, and does not suffer the vow to be altered. But if they be imperfect or unclean, He lays down the rule for their redemption. But the question here arises, How it can be allowable to vow what God had forbidden to be offered to Him, and so had prohibited from being brought into the temple, as being unclean? Surely if it had entered into any one’s mind to sacrifice an unclean animal, the superstition would be rejected, nay, there would be need of expiation. But here, in my opinion, another kind of offering is adverted to, which did not vitiate the sacrifices and service of God by being contrary to the injunctions of His Law. There was therefore nothing strange in His accepting such a vow, though He punishes its levity by a pecuniary fine. Besides, suppose a strong and well-tried horse was in danger, his master made a vow that if it were saved he would be bound to pay its price; and so also in the other cases. To vow was nothing else than to commit to God’s faithfulness and protection whatever they wished to be preserved. Hence the too great commonness of vows, which still it was necessary to discharge in some way, lest God’s sacred name should be exposed to ridicule. This estimation God left to the arbitration of the priest. But if an animal might be offered in sacrifice, no redemption was

32

allowed; and if any one had substituted another animal, or paid the price of it, he was punished for his fraud, for both (i.e., the animal, and its substitute or price) were consecrated to God. The estimation, which is imposed upon one who had vowed, is irreversible, since God simply commands the Israelites to stand by the judgment of the priest, and to abide by the taxation, as it is called, enjoined upon them as a fixed rule; and, besides, they were to add a fifth part, as an additional fine, to the price appointed by the priest. ELLICOTT, “ (11) And if it be any unclean beast.—That is, if what he vows consists of an unclean beast, which does not belong to the three kinds of sacrificial quadrupeds, and which cannot therefore be sacrificed on the altar. According to the authorities during the second Temple, however, the expression “unclean beast” here denotes defective sacrificial animals, such as oxen, sheep, and goats with blemishes, which have become unlawful for the altar.TRAPP, “Verse 11Leviticus 27:11 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:Ver. 11. Any unclean beast.] Unless the dog were excepted. [Deuteronomy 23:18] {See Trapp on "Deuteronomy 23:18"}PETT, “Leviticus 27:11-13“And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer an oblation to Yahweh, then he shall set the beast before the priest; and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as you the priest value it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of it to your estimation.”Where the beast that is vowed to Yahweh is an unclean beast, possibly an ass or a camel, it can be redeemed at a price put on it by the priest. And he must add one fifth of the valuation as recompense. He has offered to Yahweh in his vow something which was of great importance to him. He wanted to give something that he treasured. Now he gladly pays a higher price to the Sanctuary in order to receive it back and in order to demonstrate his love for God. This is a somewhat similar case to the first born of an ass which must be redeemed, or its neck broken as a gift to Yahweh (Exodus 13:2; Exodus 13:13) although there the price of redemption was a lamb and it was always required. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:11-13An 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,

33

should rather be rendered, the priest shall estimate it between good and bad, that is, at a moderate price, as though it were neither very good nor very bad. And so in the next verse.

12 who will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, that is what it will be.

GILL, "And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad,.... Put a price upon it according to its worth, as it shall appear to him: as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be; that shall be the price at which it shall be sold, not to the owner or devoter of it, for he must give more, as appears from Lev_27:13; but, as Jarchi observes, to all other men who come to purchase it.COKE, “Leviticus 27:12. As thou valuest it, who art the priest— According to the valuation of the priest.Note; (1.) A zealous heart is not only willing to its power, but above its power. (2.) We should be careful not to be hasty to vow, lest we involve ourselves in difficulties, and repent of our rashness. There is a zeal not according to knowledge. But when we have vowed to the Lord, we should pay without reserve or change: for he loveth the cheerful giver.

13 If the owner wishes to redeem the animal, a fifth must be added to its value.

34

CLARKE, "Shall add a fifth part - This was probably intended to prevent rash vows and covetous redemptions. The priest alone was to value the thing; and to whatever his valuation was, a fifth part must be added by him who wished to redeem the consecrated thing. Thus, if the priest valued it at forty shekels, if the former owner redeemed it he was obliged to give forty-eight.

GILL, "But if he will at all redeem it,.... The owner of it, or he that has devoted it, if he is determined to have it again at any rate: then he shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation; he shall give the full price for it, as rated by the priest, and for which it might be sold to another man, and a fifth part of the value of it besides; this was done that the full price might be paid for it, the priest not knowing, as it might be, the worth of it so well as the owner; and that the value of consecrated things might be kept to, and to make men careful how and what they devoted, since, though redeemable, they were obliged to pay a large price for them.

K&D, "But if the person vowing wanted to redeem it, he was to add a fifth above the valuation price, as a kind of compensation for taking back the animal he had vowed (cf. Lev_5:16).

ELLICOTT, “ (13) But if he will at all redeem it.—Better, and if he wishes to redeem it, that is, the man himself who vowed it for the sanctuary. The estimate put upon the animal in question was intended for anyone who wished to purchase it, not excluding, however, the person who vowed it.He shall add a fifth part.—Whilst anyone else could purchase the animal at the valuation put upon it by the priest, its former owner is to pay a fifth more than the valuation price. This was probably intended as a fine for taking back a thing which he promised to the Lord. For the way in which the fifth part was computed during the second Temple see Leviticus 5:16.

14 “‘If anyone dedicates their house as something holy to the Lord, the priest will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, so it will remain. 35

BARNES, "Sanctify - i. e. vow to devote. This law relates to houses in the country Lev_25:31, 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. For houses in walled towns the right of redemption lasted for only one year Lev_25:29.

CLARKE, "Shall sanctify his house - The yearly rent of which, when thus consecrated, went towards the repairs of the tabernacle, which was the house of the Lord.

GILL, "And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord,.... 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,"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.''again it is said (a),"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:" then the priest shall estimate it whether it be good or bad; 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: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand; 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.

HENRY 14-25, “Here is the law concerning real estates dedicated to the service of God by a singular vow.

I. Suppose a man, in his zeal for the honour of God, should sanctify his house to God(Lev_27:14), 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, 1Ki_15:15. 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, 36

for he should have considered before he had vowed it, Lev_27:15. To him that was necessitous God would abate the estimation (Lev_27:8); 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.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.1. If it was the inheritance of his fathers, here called the field of his possession, 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, Lev_27:16. 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, or chomer, of barley, which contained ten ephahs, Eze_45:11 (not, as some have here mistaken it, an omer,which was but a tenth part of an ephah, Exo_16:36), was valued at fifty shekels, a moderate price (Lev_27:16), and that if it were sanctified immediately from the year of jubilee, Lev_27:17. But, if some years after, there was to be a discount accordingly, even of that price, Lev_27:18. 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, Lev_27:19. 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, Lev_27:21. 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.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, Lev_27:24. 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, 1Co_16:2. 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, Mar_7:11. 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. 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 (Lev_27:25); it shall be twenty gerahs, and every gerah was sixteen barley-corns. This was fixed before (Exo_30:13); and, whereas there had been some alterations, it is again fixed in the laws of Ezekiel's visionary temple (Eze_45:12), to denote that the gospel should reduce things to their ancient standard.

37

JAMISON 14-15, “when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the Lord, etc. — In this case, the house having been valued by the priest and sold, the proceeds of the sale 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 fifth part to the price.

K&D 14-15, “When a house was vowed, the same rules applied as in the case of unclean cattle. Knobel's 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.

CALVIN, "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

38

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.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. (John 4:21.) 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.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.

39

COFFMAN, “"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. And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add a fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall he his."One reason, no doubt, for the monetary penalties for the redemption of things vowed to God was that of discouraging rash and thoughtless vows. Clements commented on this: "These laws highlighted the need for caution and seriousness in making vows and promises to God. Rash promises may afterward be regretted, and Israel's law did not permit the man who had made a hasty promise to forget it and do nothing about it. We may well pause to consider how many promises we have made to God and have not fulfilled."[7]Wenham was probably correct in supposing that the "houses" referred to in these verses "were town houses that did not figure as part of the family's estate and therefore could be bought and sold freely."[8]ELLICOTT, “ (14) And when a man shall sanctify his house.—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 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. 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.EBC, “OF THE VOWING OF HOUSES AND FIELDSLeviticus 27:14-25

40

"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 priest’s. 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."The law regarding the consecration of a man’s house unto the Lord by a vow (Leviticus 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 priest’s 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 (Leviticus 27:16-21) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which belonged to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (Leviticus 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 Lord’s 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" (Leviticus 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

41

to the priest’s estimation, e.g., on the payment of sixty instead of fifty shekels (Leviticus 27:19).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 Lord’s; 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 (Leviticus 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. {Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 owner’s right to redeem the field.Leviticus 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.THE "VOW" IN NEW TESTAMENT ETHICSNot 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 {Deuteronomy 23:22} reminded that

42

there is no special merit in it; if he forbear, he is no worse a man.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: {Ecclesiastes 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 one’s 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.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.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 {Matthew 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 {Acts 18:18, Acts 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 one’s substance which could be regarded as not already God’s 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

43

ethics, as distinguished from those of the Old, we must therefore conclude that for the vow there is no logical place.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.PETT, “Verse 14-15The Price For Redemption of a House (Leviticus 27:14-15).Leviticus 27:14-15“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.”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.

44

15 If the one who dedicates their house wishes to redeem it, they must add a fifth to its value, and the house will again become theirs.

GILL, "And if he that sanctifieth it will redeem his house,.... An house set apart for holy uses might be redeemed, either by another paying the price set upon it by the priest, or by the original owner of it paying a fifth part more; and this was the case, whether of houses in walled cities or in villages: so Maimonides says,"he that sanctifies his house, whether it be one of those in walled cities, or of those in villages, it may be always redeemed; he that redeems one out of the hand of holiness (or which has been sanctified), if it is a house in a walled city, and remains in the possession of the redeemer twelve months, it is absolutely his; but if it is a house in the villages, and the jubilee comes, and it is in the possession of the redeemer, it returns to its owner in the jubilee (b):''but if the owner of it had a mind to redeem it after he had devoted it: then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his; that is, he was to give a fifth part more for the house than it was valued at by the priest, or than another might have it for; the reason of which was, to make men careful how they sanctified or vowed their houses or goods, and that it might be certain that the full value was given for it, the worth of which the priest might not know so well as the owner, and the latter, being willing to give the price set by the former, might give suspicion of it; wherefore, in order to have the full price of it with certainty, and to set an high value on things devoted, the owner was to give a fifth part more than the estimation of it: thus, for instance, if an house thus devoted was valued by the priest at the price of an hundred pounds, the owner was obliged, if he would redeem it, to give an hundred twenty pounds. ELLICOTT, “(15) And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house.—Though the net price thus fixed by the priest is all that anyone else who wishes to buy it has to pay for the house, yet if the former owner of it, or, according to the practice which obtained during the second Temple, his son, wife, or nearest of kin, wishes to redeem it, he is to add one-fifth more than the valuation price, just as in the case of animals, and for the same reason, that is, for taking back a thing which he once promised to the Lord. (See Leviticus 27:13.)

45

16 “‘If anyone dedicates to the Lord part of their family land, its value is to be set according to the amount of seed required for it—fifty shekels of silver to a homer[i] of barley seed.

BARNES, "Some part of a field of his possession - Rather, a part of the land of his inheritance.

The seed thereof - i. e. the quantity of seed required to sow it properly. Thus the value of about 5 1/2 bushels (an homer) was about 6 pounds, 9 shillings, 2d. (50 shekels. See Exo_38:24.)

CLARKE, "Some part of a field - Though the preceding words are not in the text, yet it is generally allowed they should be supplied here, as it was not lawful for a man to vow his whole estate, and thus make his family beggars, in order to enrich the Lord’s sanctuary: this God would not permit. The rabbins teach that the land or field, whether good or bad, was valued at forty-eight shekels, for all the years of the jubilee, provided the field was large enough to sow a homer of barley. The חמר chomer was different from the עמר omer: the latter held about three quarts, the former, seventy-five gallons three pints; See the note on Exo_16:16. Some suppose that the land was rated, not at fifty shekels for the whole of the years of the jubilee, for this would be but about 3s. per annum; but that it was rated according to its produce, fifty shekels for every homer of barley it produced.

GILL, "And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field of his possession,.... That which he enjoyed by inheritance from his father, to distinguish it from a field of his own purchase, as in Lev_27:22; and which might be devoted, not all of it, but a part of it; partly that he might have something to live upon, or to improve for a livelihood for himself and family, and partly that estates might not be alienated entirely from their families and tribes in which they were: then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof; not according to the field, the goodness or badness of that, one field being good and another bad, as Jarchi observes, but according to the quantity of seed which it produced, or rather which it required for the sowing of it:

46

an homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver; which was near six pounds of our money; and here we must carefully distinguish between an "omer", beginning with an "o", and an "homer", beginning with an "h"; not observing this has led some learned men into mistakes in their notes on this place, for an "omer" was the tenth part of an "ephah", Exo_16:36; and an "ephah" is but the tenth part of an "homer", Eze_45:11; which makes a very great difference in this measure of barley, for an homer of it contained ten ephahs or bushels; and even according to this account a bushel of barley is rated very high, for ten bushels at fifty shekels, reckoning a shekel half a crown, or them at six pounds five shillings, are at the rate of twelve shillings and sixpence a bushel, which is too high a price for barley; wherefore as an ephah, the tenth part of an homer, contained three seahs or pecks, and which some call bushels, then an homer consisted of thirty bushels, which brings down the value of it to little more than two shillings a bushel, which is much nearer the true value of barley; but the truth of the matter is, that the value of barley for sowing is not ascertained, as our version leads us to think; for the words should be rendered, if the "seed be an homer of barley", it, the field, shall be valued "at fifty shekels of silver": if the field take so much seed to sow it as the quantity of an homer of barley, then it was to be rated at fifty shekels of silver; and if it took two homers, then it was to be rated at an hundred shekels, and so on.JAMISON 16-24, “if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field

of his possession, etc. — In the case of acquired property in land, if not redeemed, it returned to the donor at the Jubilee; whereas the part of a hereditary estate, which had been vowed, did not revert to the owner, but remained attached in perpetuity to the sanctuary. The reason for this remarkable difference was to lay every man under an obligation to redeem the property, or stimulate his nearest kinsman to do it, in order to prevent a patrimonial inheritance going out from any family in Israel.

K&D, "With regard to the vowing of land, a difference was made between a field inherited and one that had been purchased.Lev_27:16

If any one sanctified to the Lord “of the field of his possession,” i.e., a portion of his hereditary property, the valuation was to be made according to the measure of the seed sown; and an omer of barley was to be appraised at fifty shekels, so that a field sown with an omer of barley would be valued at fifty shekels. As an omer was equal to ten ephahs (Eze_45:11), and, according to the calculation made by Thenius, held about 225 lbs., the fifty shekels cannot have been the average value of the yearly produce of such a field, but must be understood, as it was by the Rabbins, as the value of the produce of a complete jubilee period of 49 or 50 years; so that whoever wished to redeem the field had to pay, according to Mishnah, Erachin vii. 1, a shekel and a fifth per annum.COFFMAN, “Verse 16"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. If he sanctify his field from the year

47

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 hath 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 Jehovah, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest's. And if he sanctify unto Jehovah 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 Jehovah. 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."In these instructions regarding the devotions of fields, the thing that stands out is precedence of the year of Jubilee. Unalienable rights to the land by the descendants of the original possessors of Canaan could not be given away permanently, not even to the priests, except in instances where some fraud existed. Furthermore, all calculations of the right of redemption were made with reference to how many years still remained in the Jubilee. It appears that the right of redeeming devoted lands was calculated on a basis that would have favored the one wishing to redeem it. A value of fifty shekels was placed upon the amount of land that could be sowed with a homer of barley, "according to the sowing of a homer of barley" (Leviticus 27:16), but that fifty shekels paid for the full time of fifty years between Jubilees. That means one shekel per year. Some have attempted to read this valuation as a shekel a year for the amount of land that yielded a homer of barley, but we reject this on the basis that the yield of a field is not necessarily constant, whereas, the sowing of a field was a standard understood by everyone. It is true, as Wenham said, that, "Most commentators understand it" as we have indicated here.[9]The instructions as to the kind of shekel to be used in redemption of vows were required because a shekel long in circulation would become worn and have less weight than the twenty gerahs (the standard weight of the shekel). The full weight of 10 shekels would therefore have been 200 gerahs, which might have required eleven worn shekels to be sufficient. "`According to the shekel of the sanctuary' therefore means the shekel at its full value, before worn by use in traffic."[10]COKE, “Leviticus 27:16. If a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field of his possession— Bishop Patrick observes, that this intimates it not to have been lawful for a man to vow his whole field or estate; because God would have no man's family made beggars to enrich his sanctuary. The valuation here is an homer of barley-seed at fifty shekels:i.e. so much land as an homer of barley would sow, was to be rated at fifty shekels: (see on Leviticus 27:2-3.) and so proportionably for greater or less quantities of ground so devoted. Houbigant is of opinion, that not the

48

seed to be sown, but the seed produced by the land, is here referred to as the mode of valuation. The homer here, (as we have before observed) is a different measure from the omer mentioned in Exodus 16:16.: that was but the tenth part of an ephah; this was ten ephahs; Ezekiel 45:4. By this, Isaiah 5:10 may be explained, the seed of an homer shall yield an ephah, i.e. ten bushels shall yield but one. The homer, called also cor, was the largest measure of capacity for things dry; and was equal to about seventy-five gallons five pints English. In the following verses, proper rules are given for the just valuation of fields with regard to the year of jubilee. Thy estimation, is rendered by some, the valuation. ELLICOTT, “ (16) Some part of a field of his possession.—That is, if he consecrates by a vow to the service of the sanctuary a portion of a field which he inherits from his forefathers, and which, therefore, constitutes a part of his inalienable patrimony, thus distinguishing it from a field which he has acquired by his own purchase. (See Leviticus 27:22.) The words, some part which are in italics, are implied in the Hebrew construction of these words. No man was allowed to vow the whole of his estates to the sanctuary, as he would thereby impoverish his own family.Thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof.—Better, thy estimation shall be according to its seed, that is, he is not to part with the field thus vowed for the sanctuary, but the priest is to value the area according to the quantity of seed required for sowing it.An homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.—That is, if the piece of land which he vowed could properly be cropped with one homer, or five bushels and a half of barley seed, he is to value it at £6 9s. 2d. (See Leviticus 27:3.) According to the authorities during the second Temple, these fifty shekels covered the value of the produce for the whole period of forty-nine years, that is, from one jubile year to another, so that a plot of land of the dimensions here described was estimated at a little more than one shekel per annum. The person who made the vow could, under these circumstances, always redeem it, as it would almost amount to a gift to let any stranger buy it at this price. The low value put upon it was evidently designed not to deprive the family of their means of subsistence, since the patrimonial estates were almost always the only source of their livelihood.PETT, “Verses 16-21The Price For The Redemption of a Field Of His Possession Dedicated To Yahweh (Leviticus 27:16-21).A field of his possession refers to one the possession of which is given to him when the first share out is made in Canaan, a field which if sold would normally come back to him at the year of Yubile. To vow such a field was to seek to enter into something of the blessing of the Levite whose possession was Yahweh Himself (Joshua 13:33).

49

Leviticus 27:16“And if a man shall sanctify to Yahweh part of the field of his possession, then your estimation shall be according to its sowing, the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.”If the vow affects part of the field of his possession then the cost of redemption is assessed by how much grain or fruit that part of the field would produce. The assumption will be that a homer of barley would be worth fifty shekels of silver. Thus the quantity of homers of barley it might produce must be estimated in order to value the field. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:16-21In case a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field of his possession, that is, 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; plus one-fifth, that is, f7 15s; 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, 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; 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.

17 If they dedicate a field during the Year of Jubilee, the value that has been set remains.

GILL, "If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee,.... The very year, as Aben Ezra, while it is current, or when it is past, and he immediately sanctifies it for an holy use, and one comes to redeem it, as Jarchi says, as soon as ever it is devoted, and a priest has valued it, and there is a purchaser of it:

50

according to thy estimation it shall stand; what price soever the priest set upon it, that it was to go at, and he that had a mind to purchase it might have it for it, unless it was he that devoted it, and then he was to give a fifth part more, as afterwards expressed.K&D, "Lev_27:17-19

If he sanctified his field from the year of jubilee, i.e., immediately after the expiration of that year, it was to “stand according to thy valuation,” i.e., no alteration was to be made in the valuation. But if it took place after the year of jubilee, i.e., some time or some years after, the priest was to estimate the value according to the number of years to the next year of jubilee, and “it shall be abated from thy valuation,” sc., praeteritum tempus, the time that has elapsed since the year of jubilee. Hence, for example, if the field was vowed ten years after the year of jubilee, the man who wished to redeem it had only forty shekels to pay for the forty years remaining up to the next year of jubilee, or, with the addition of the fifth, 48 shekels. The valuation was necessary in both cases, for the hereditary field was inalienable, and reverted to the original owner or his heirs in the year of jubilee without compensation (cf. Lev_27:21 and Lev_25:13, Lev_25:23.); so that, strictly speaking, it was not the field itself, but the produce of its harvests up to the next year of jubilee, that was vowed, whether the person making the vow left it to the sanctuary in natura till the year of jubilee, or wished to redeem it again by paying the valuation price. In the latter case, however, he had to put a fifth over and above the valuation price (Lev_27:19, like Lev_27:13 and Lev_27:15), that it might be left to him.PETT, “Leviticus 27:17“If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee, according to your estimation it shall stand.”If the vow is made at the beginning of the forty nine year period to the next yubile, then the assessment is made on that basis, depending on what barley could be produced in that time.

18 But if they dedicate a field after the Jubilee, the priest will determine the value according to the number of years that remain until the next Year of Jubilee, and its set value will be reduced.

51

GILL, "But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee,.... Some years after it, more or fewer, or it may be, when half way towards another jubilee, or nearer: then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubilee; thus, for instance, if it only required an homer of barley to sow it, and the whole value of it from jubilee to jubilee was but fifty shekels of silver; then supposing it to be sanctified in the middle of the fifty years, or at twenty five years' end, it was to be reckoned at twenty five shekels, and sold for that money, and so in proportion, reckoning a shekel for a year: and it shall be abated from thy estimation; not the year of jubilee, but a shekel for every year was to be deducted from the original value of fifty shekels, according to the number of years that had passed or were to come.ELLICOTT, “ (18) But if he sanctify his field after the jubile.—If, however, the vow is made after the jubile, the priest is to value the field according to the number of years from the time of the vow to the next jubile year.And it shall be abated from thy estimation.—That is, the years which have elapsed since the last jubile up to the time when he made the vow are to be deducted from the jubile cycle, and hence so many shekels are to be taken off from the original valuation of fifty shekels. Thus, for instance, if he vowed the field at the estimated value of fifty shekels twenty years after the jubile, the priest is only to reckon the thirty years which have to run to the next jubile, and is to deduct twenty shekels for the twenty years which have elapsed since the last jubile. Accordingly, the vower would only have to pay thirty shekels, exclusive of the fifth part above the estimated value.PETT, “Leviticus 27:18“But if he sanctify his field after the yubile, then the priest shall reckon to him the money according to the years that remain to the year of yubile; and an abatement shall be made from your estimation.”However if the assessment is made after the year of Yubile then the proportion of time remaining is the amount which has to be taken into account.

19 If the one who dedicates the field wishes to redeem it, they must add a fifth to its value, and the field will again become theirs. 52

GILL, "And if he that sanctified the field shall in any wise redeem it,.... Is desirous of it, and determined upon it at any rate, repenting that he had parted with it in this manner: then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation to it: the Jerusalem Targum is, the fifth part of the shekels of silver: that is, if he has a mind to redeem it, and is resolved on it, as soon as he has sanctified it, then, besides the fifty shekels of silver it is rated at, and might be sold for to another, he must pay a fifth part thereof, that is, ten shekels more, for reasons before given, Lev_27:15, and it shall be assured to him; remain firm and stable with him, abide by him, and he in the possession of it as his property, ever after, as if he had never sanctified it.ELLICOTT, “(19) And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it.—Better, and if he wishes to redeem the field that sanctified it. (See Leviticus 27:13.) This is sure to be the case, since the low value fixed per acre was designed that the field should be redeemed by him. According to the legislation during the second Temple, the rule here included his wife and his heirs, any one of whom had the right to redeem it. But the family in redeeming it had, as usual, to add one-fifth over and above the valuation price, for the reason already stated. (See Leviticus 27:13; Leviticus 27:15.)PETT, “Leviticus 27:19“And if he who sanctified the field will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your estimation to it, and it shall be assured to him.”In the end the price that must be paid for its redemption so that it again belongs to the man whose inheritance it first was is the estimated price plus one fifth redemption offering. If that is paid then the field is again his. But now in his sight it is a blessed field, for it has belonged to Yahweh.

20 If, however, they do not redeem the field, or if they have sold it to someone else, it can never be redeemed. 53

GILL, "And if he will not redeem the field,.... He that sanctified it, does not care to give for it the settled price of the fifth part besides, but chooses it should be disposed of for the uses he devoted it to: or if he have sold the field to another man; that is, either the original owner having bought it and sold it again, or rather the priest, the treasurer, as Jarchi, who had the disposal of it, for the uses and purposes for which it was devoted, when sold by him: it shall not be redeemed any more; it was not in the power of him that sanctified it to make a purchase of it again; the buyer of it might not sell it to him again, for otherwise, by that means, he might come at it cheaper than the law directs; besides, there is another reason for it, which is suggested in Lev_27:21.K&D 20-21, “Lev_27:20-21

In case he did not redeem it, however, namely, before the commencement of the next year of jubilee, or sold it to another man, i.e., to a man not belonging to his family, he could no longer redeem it; but on its going out, i.e., becoming free in the year of jubilee (see Lev_25:28), it was to be holy to the Lord, like a field under the ban (see Lev_27:28), and to fall to the priests as their property. Hinc colligere est, redimendum fuisse ante Jubilaeum consecratum agrum, nisi quis vellet eum plane abalienari (Clericus). According to the distinct words of the text (observe the correspondence of ְוִאם...ְוִאם), the field, that had been vowed, fell to the sanctuary in the jubilee year not only when the owner had sold it in the meantime, but also when he had not previously redeemed it. The reason for selling the field at a time when he had vowed it to the sanctuary, need not be sought for in caprice and dishonesty, as it is by Knobel. If the field was vowed in this sense, that it was not handed over to the sanctuary (the priesthood) to be cultivated, but remained in the hands of the proprietor, so that every year he paid to the sanctuary simply the valuation price, - and this may have been the rule, as the priests whose duties lay at the sanctuary could not busy themselves about the cultivation of the field, but would be obliged either to sell the piece of land at once, or farm it, - the owner might sell the field up to the year of jubilee, to be saved the trouble of cultivating it, and the purchaser could not only live upon what it yielded over and above the price to be paid every year to the sanctuary, but might possibly realize something more. In such a case the fault of the seller, for which he had to make atonement by the forfeiture of his field to the sanctuary in the year of jubilee, 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. At any rate, it is quite inadmissible to supply a different subject to ָמַכר from that of the parallel ָּגַאל, viz., the priest.

COKE, “Leviticus 27:20. And if he will not redeem the field, &c.— Our version here is very ambiguous. Houbigant renders it more clearly after the Vulgate; but if he

54

will not redeem the field, and it be sold to another person, it shall not, &c.] The Arabic version has it, and if the priest have sold it, &c.ELLICOTT, “ (20) And if he will not redeem the field.—That is, if after all the advantages which the law affords to the vower to redeem his patrimonial inheritance before the jubile year, he is base enough to forego the privilege of redemption, thus showing no desire to perpetuate his family name,—Or if he have sold the field to another man.—Better, and if he yet sells the field to another man, that is, if in addition to this absence of family honour he surreptitiously sells the field which he has vowed to the sanctuary to another man, thus adding sacrilege to baseness,—It shall not be redeemed any more,—then he loses all right ever to redeem it at all.PETT, “Leviticus 27:20-21“And if he will not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more, but the field, when it goes out in the jubilee, shall be holy to Yahweh, as a field devoted. The possession of it shall be the priest’s.”But if a man has vowed the field and will not redeem it, or if he has vowed it and sold it to someone else (and therefore cannot redeem it), then at the year of Yubile it will be holy to Yahweh and will not be able to be redeemed. From then on it is the possession of the priests.This would seem to be the only way by which the family fields could permanently be lost. In this case they had been given back to Yahweh and were therefore irrecoverable. The man had to consider the full consequences of his vow.

21 When the field is released in the Jubilee, it will become holy, like a field devoted to the Lord; it will become priestly property.

55

CLARKE, "As a field devoted - It is חרם cherem, a thing so devoted to God as never more to be capable of being redeemed. See on Lev_27:29 (note).

GILL, "But the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee,.... Out of the hand of him that bought it: shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted; though it went out of the hand of the purchaser, it did not return to him that sanctified or devoted it, but was separated to sacred uses for the service of the Lord; for every devoted thing, whether of man, beast, or field, was most holy to the Lord, Lev_27:28, the possession thereof shall be the priests'; it did not return to the treasurer of the sanctuary, who had sold it to another for the repair of the temple, as Jarchi observes, but as a devoted field it was given to the priests, as it is said, "everything devoted in Israel shall be thine", Num_18:14; and even this was divided, as he says, between the priests of that ward or course that happened to be on the day of atonement of the jubilee year: but in case it never was redeemed, but remained sanctified in the year of jubilee, the priests did not possess it without paying for it; and so the Jewish canon runs (c),"the jubilee comes, and the field is not redeemed, the priests enter into it, and pay the price of it;''on which one of the commentators (d) observes, when anyone has redeemed it, the money becomes sacred for the repairs of the temple; and when the jubilee comes, it goes out (i.e. of the hands of the purchaser) to the priests freely; but if it is not redeemed, the priests must pay the price of fifty shekels, and take it; and if even it was bought by a priest before out of the hands of the treasurer, it went from him to his brethren the priests, in the year of jubilee: the rule is this,"if any of the priests redeem it, and, lo, it is in his possession, he may not say, seeing it goes out to the priests in the year of jubilee, lo, it is in my possession, lo, it is mine, but it shall go out to all his brethren the priests (e).''

ELLICOTT, “ (21) But the field, when it goeth out in the jubile.—That is, when it quits the hand of the purchaser, since in jubile every buyer was to part with the land which he bought, (see Leviticus 25:25-28)—Shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field devoted.—It shall not revert to the original owner who first vowed it and, after refusing to redeem it, fraudulently sold it, but becomes God’s property, like all devoted or banned things. (See Leviticus 27:28.) According to the authorities during the second Temple, however, the import of the law laid down in Leviticus 27:20-21 is as follows :—If the vower of the field does not redeem it before the jubile year, and the field is then still in the possession of the Temple treasurer, who has the control of all the things thus consecrated by vow; or if the Temple treasurer has sold the field to another person who has it in his possession, the original owner or vower can no longer redeem it, but in the year of jubile it reverts either from the Temple treasurer or the purchaser to the priests who are on duty in that year, who add it to their pasture fields. These priests, however, have to pay for it the valuation money.

56

22 “‘If anyone dedicates to the Lord a field they have bought, which is not part of their family land,

GILL, "And if a man sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought,.... With his own money, of some person in poverty and distress, who was obliged to sell it, and which, according to a former law, returned to the original proprietor in the year of jubilee: which is not of the fields of his possession; which he has not by inheritance from his fathers. Jarchi observes, there is a difference between a field bought, and a field possessed; for a field bought is not divided to the priests in the year of jubilee, because a man cannot sanctify it but until the year of jubilee; for in the year of jubilee it would go out of his hands, and return to the owner; wherefore if he comes to redeem it, he must redeem it with the price fixed for the field of possession: the Jewish doctors are divided about a field bought of a father by a son, whether it is a field of purchase or of possession (f). K&D, "Lev_27:22-24

If on the other hand any one dedicated to the Lord a “field of his purchase,” i.e., a field that had been bought and did not belong to his patrimony, he was to give the amount of the valuation as estimated by the priest up to the year of jubilee “on that day,” i.e., immediately, and all at once. This regulation warrants the conclusion, that on the dedication of hereditary fields, the amount was not paid all at once, but year by year. In the year of jubilee the field that had been vowed, if a field acquired by purchase, did not revert to the buyer, but to the hereditary owner from whom it had been bought, according to the law in Lev_25:23-28.ELLICOTT, “(22) And if a man sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought.—But if a man vows a field which he has acquired by purchase, and which is only his till the next jubile, when it reverts to its original owner (see Leviticus 25:25-28), the case is necessarily different. Such a leased field, when vowed to the Lord, is to be dealt with as follows :—PETT, “Verses 22-25

57

The Redemption Price Of Other Fields (Leviticus 27:22-25).Leviticus 27:22-24“And if he sanctify to Yahweh a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his possession, then the priest shall reckon to him the worth of your estimation to the year of jubilee, and he shall give your estimation in that day, as a holy thing to Yahweh. In the year of jubilee the field shall return to him from whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land belongs.”But if a man vows and sets apart as holy for Yahweh a field which is not of the land of his possession, at the year of Yubile it returns to the man whose possession it is. Meanwhile the man who vowed it must pay a redemption price equal to its value to the year of Yubile plus one fifth so that he may again use the field. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:22-24The 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, or inheritance, 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, the land, of course, reverting to the original owner at the jubilee.

23 the priest will determine its value up to the Year of Jubilee, and the owner must pay its value on that day as something holy to the Lord.

GILL, "Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the year of jubilee,.... The priest was to estimate the field of purchase sanctified, and set a price upon it according to the best of his judgment, and give it to the person that sanctified it, or whoever would redeem it; and this estimate was made, according to the number of years there were to the year of jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day; the price set upon the field by the priest immediately, either the sanctifier, but without adding the fifth part, as in Lev_27:19; so Maimonides (g) observes, or any other purchaser:

58

as a holy thing unto the Lord; to sacred uses, as the repairs of the temple, &c. to which the purchase money was appropriated. ELLICOTT, “ (23) Then the priest shall reckon unto him.—In this case the vower is not to pay the low rate fixed for a field which is the family inheritance (see Leviticus 27:16), but the priest is to value it in proportion to the number of crops which it will produce up to the year of jubile, in the same way as fields are valued in ordinary purchases. (See Leviticus 25:14-16.)And he shall give thine estimation in that day.—This valuation the vower or his relatives had to pay all at once, without, however, the additional fifth part of its value; whilst in the case of vowing an hereditary field, the vower had the advantage of paying the small sum by yearly installments.

24 In the Year of Jubilee the field will revert to the person from whom it was bought, the one whose land it was.

GILL, "In the year of jubilee, the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought,.... Not to him that sanctified it, whether he redeemed it or not; nor to him that bought it of the treasurer of the temple after it was sanctified; but to the original proprietor and owner of it, of whom he bought it that sanctified it, for so it follows: even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong; which was a possession of his he had by inheritance from his fathers, and therefore, according to the law of the year of jubilee, was then to return to him, and could be retained no longer, nor even converted to holy uses; for as it is said in the Misnah (h),"a field of purchase goes not out to the priests in the year of jubilee; for no man can sanctify a thing which is not his own;''as what he had purchased was no longer his than to the year of jubilee, and therefore could not devote it to sacred uses for any longer time. ELLICOTT, “(24) The field shall return unto him of whom it was bought.—In accordance with the law laid down in Leviticus 25:23-28, the field thus vowed did not return to the purchaser in the year of jubile, but to the, hereditary owner, of whom the person who had vowed it to the Lord had bought it.

59

25 Every value is to be set according to the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel.

BARNES, "On the shekel and the gerah, see Exo_30:13, note; Exo_38:24, note.CLARKE, "Shekel of the sanctuary - A standard shekel; the standard being kept

in the sanctuary to try and regulate all the weights in the land by. See Gen_20:16; Gen_23:15.

GILL, "And all thy estimation shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary,.... The shekel kept in the sanctuary, which was the standard of all shekels; not that there was a shekel in the sanctuary different from the common one; for every shekel ought to have been as that, of the full weight and worth of it; and the estimation was to be according to such a shekel, and the money paid in such, even in full weight: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel; which the Targum of Jonathan calls "meahs" or "oboli", one of which was about three halfpence of our money, scarce so much, and weighed near eleven grains, as Bishop Cumberland (i) has calculated: see Eze_45:12. K&D, "Lev_27:25

All valuations were to be made according to the shekel of the sanctuary.

COKE, “Verse 25Leviticus 27:25. And all thy estimations, &c.— I find the following note on this verse in Dr. Church's Bible, in which he follows the opinion of Bishop Wilkins. "So great care was taken among the Jews for the preservation of commutative justice from all abuse and falsification in weights and measures, that the public standards, by which all other measures were to be tried and allowed, were with much religion preserved in the sanctuary; the care of them being committed to the priests and Levites, whose office it was to look unto all manner of measures and sizes, 1 Chronicles 23:29. Hence this frequent expression, according to the shekel, &c. which doth not refer to any weight or coin distinct from, or more than the vulgar, as some fondly conceive; but doth only oblige men, in their dealing and traffic, to make use of such just

60

measures, as were agreeable to the public standards kept in the sanctuary."Note; Though we need not sell our houses now for God's service, it becomes us to sanctify them to him, by constant worship and his fear in the midst of them. ELLICOTT, “(25) According to the shekel of the sanctuary.—As the proceeds of these vows were devoted to the maintenance and repair of the sanctuary, all the valuations are to be made and paid according to the standard weight of the sanctuary shekel. (See Exodus 30:13.)PETT, “Leviticus 27:25“And all your estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.”The shekel used in these estimations is to be the shekel of the sanctuary as quoted. BI, “According to the shekel of the sanctuary.Sanctuary measure demanded in small thingsThe law of the sanctuary is to regulate all. Full weight is sought for, but neither superfluity nor abatement. God loves a perfect balance and a just weight. We do not know whether or not there was a standard measure kept in the sanctuary; but it is very probable. Some, indeed, render the words, “shekel of holiness,” i.e., a true shekel; still it is every way likely that the other is the true meaning, admitting that this rendering be right. There was probably a standard measure kept in the sanctuary, by which all other weights and measures were regulated. Here would be a type to Israel of the Lord’s justice. Here, in the sanctuary of Jehovah, they found the source and regulating measure of all dealings in business between man and man, and of all similar dealings between God and man, through His priests. Would not this standard measure be felt to be a type of the Lord’s original attribute of righteousness? He it is that judges; He it is that fixes what is right and what is wrong; He it is to whom all Israel must come to have thought and action weighed. May not 1Sa_2:3 refer to this? Hannah’s eye had rested on this standard measure, and so she sings, “By Him actions are weighed.” Who shall stand before this holy God? He perceives what is wanting the moment He has adjusted His balances. He detects the want of faith in Cain at the altar; of true godly zeal in Jehu’s heart; of love in Ephesus; of life in Sardis; of oil in the five virgins; of the wedding garment in the speechless guest: He judges according to the real weight—not the apparent. He judges “according as the work has been,” not according as the show has been (1Co_5:10; Rev_20:12; Rev_22:12). (A. A. Bonar.)

26 “‘No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn 61

of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord; whether an ox[j] or a sheep, it is the Lord’s.

GILL, "Only the firstlings of the beasts,.... These are excepted from being sanctified, or set apart for sacred uses, for a very good reason, suggested in the next clause: which should be the Lord's firstling, no man shall sanctify it; it being what he has a claim upon, and ordered to be sanctified to him by a law previous to this, Exo_13:2; wherefore to sanctify such a creature, would be to sanctify what was his before; not merely in a general sense, in which all creatures are his, but in a special sense, having in a peculiar manner required it as his; and therefore to sanctify, or vow to him, what was his before, must be trifling with him, and mocking of him: whether it be ox, or sheep; the firstlings of either of them: it is the Lord's; which he has claimed as his own special and peculiar property, antecedent to any vow of its owner.

HENRY 26-34, “Here is, I. A caution given that no man should make such a jest of sanctifying things to the Lord as to sanctify any firstling to him, for that was his already by the law, Lev_27:26. Though the matter of a general vow be that which we were before obliged to, as of our sacramental covenant, yet a singular vow should be of that which we were not, in such circumstances and proportions, antecedently bound to. The law concerning the firstlings of unclean beasts (Lev_27:27) is the same with that before, Lev_27:11, Lev_27:12.

II. Things or persons devoted are here distinguished from things or persons that were only sanctified. 1. Devoted things were most holy to the Lord, and could neither revert nor be alienated, Lev_27:28. They were of the same nature with those sacrifices which were called most holy, which none might touch but only the priests themselves. The difference between these and other sanctified things arose from the different expression of the vow. If a man dedicated any thing to God, binding himself with a solemn curse never to alienate it to any other purpose, then it was a thing devoted. 2. Devoted persons were to be put to death, Lev_27:29. Not that it was in the power of any parent or master thus to devote a child or a servant to death; but it must be meant of the public enemies of Israel, who, either by the appointment of God or by the sentence of the congregation, were devoted, as the seven nations with which they must make no league. The city of Jericho in particular was thus devoted, Jos_6:17. The inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were put to death for violating the curse pronounced upon those who came not up to Mizpeh, Jdg_21:9, Jdg_21:10. Some think it was for want of being rightly informed of the true intent and meaning of this law that Jephtha sacrificed his daughter as one devoted, who might not be redeemed.62

III. A law concerning tithes, which were paid for the service of God before the law, as appears by Abraham's payment of them, (Gen_14:20), and Jacob's promise of them, Gen_28:22. It is here appointed, 1. That they should pay tithe of all their increase, their corn, trees, and cattle, Lev_27:30, Lev_27:32. Whatsoever productions they had the benefit of God must be honoured with the tithe of, if it were titheable. Thus they acknowledged God to be the owner of their land, the giver of its fruits, and themselves to be his tenants, and dependents upon him. Thus they gave him thanks for the plenty they enjoyed, and supplicated his favour in the continuance of it. And we are taught in general to honour the Lord with our substance (Pro_3:9), and in particular to support and maintain his ministers, and to be ready to communicate to them, Gal_6:6; 1Co_9:11. And how this may be done in a fitter and more equal proportion than that of the tenth, which God himself appointed of old, I cannot see. 2. That which was once marked for tithe should not be altered, no, not for a better (Lev_27:33), for Providence directed the rod that marked it. God would accept it though it were not the best, and they must not grudge it though it were, for it was what passed under the rod. 3. That it should not be redeemed, unless the owner would give a fifth part more for its ransom, Lev_27:31. If men had the curiosity to prefer what was marked for tithe before any other part of their increase, it was fit that they should pay for their curiosity.IV. The last verse seems to have reference to this whole book of which it is the conclusion: These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses, for the children of Israel. Many of these commandments are moral, and of perpetual obligation; others of them, which were ceremonial and peculiar to the Jewish economy, have notwithstanding a spiritual significancy, and are instructive to us who are furnished with a key to let us into the mysteries contained in them; for unto us, by those institutions, is the gospel preached as well as unto them, Heb_4:2. Upon the whole matter, we may see cause to bless God that we have not come to mount Sinai, Heb_12:18. 1. That we are not under the dark shadows of the law, but enjoy the clear light of the gospel, which shows us Christ the end of the law for righteousness, Rom_10:4. The doctrine of our reconciliation to God by a Mediator is not clouded with the smoke of burning sacrifices, but cleared by the knowledge of Christ and him crucified. 2. That we are not under the heavy yoke of the law, and the carnal ordinances of it (as the apostle calls them, Heb_9:10), imposed till the time of reformation, a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Act_15:10), but under the sweet and easy institutions of the gospel, which pronounces those the true worshippers that worship the Father in spirit and truth, by Christ only, and in his name, who is our priest, temple, altar, sacrifice, purification, and all. Let us not therefore think that because we are not tied to the ceremonial cleansings, feasts, and oblations, a little care, time, and expense, will serve to honour God with. No, but rather have our hearts more enlarge with free-will offerings to his praise, more inflamed with holy love and joy, and more engaged in seriousness of thought and sincerity of intention. Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near with a true heart, and full assurance of faith, worshipping God with so much the more cheerfulness and humble confidence, still saying, Blessed be God for Jesus Christ!

JAMISON 26-27, “Only the firstling of the beasts — These, in the case of clean beasts, being consecrated to God by a universal and standing law (Exo_13:12; Exo_34:19), could not be devoted; and in that of unclean beasts, were subject to the rule

63

mentioned (Lev_27:11, Lev_27:12).

K&D 26-27, “What belonged to the Lord by law could not be dedicated to Him by a vow, especially the first-born of clean cattle (cf. Exo_13:1-2). The first-born of unclean animals were to be redeemed according to the valuation of the priest, with the addition of a fifth; and if this was not done, it was to be sold at the estimated value. 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; Exo_34:20), was modified in favour of the revenues of the sanctuary and its servants.

CALVIN, "26.Only the firstling of the beasts. Here a caution is interposed, that none should offer what is already the property of God. For since men are so greatly given to ostentation, and therefore in testifying their piety whitewash two walls, as the saying is, out of the same pot, God provides against this sin by forbidding the first-born to be offered to Him, since that would be to present stolen goods to Him. The sum is, that they should not, by consecrating to God what is already due to Him, steal from Him in their fictitious liberality what is consecrated and not their own. Nor let us be surprised at this law, because this ambition is almost natural to us all, to desire to lay God under obligation by the empty appearance of liberality, and therefore to seek for various grounds of boasting of religious duties, which, after all, are nought. And, undoubtedly, if this restraint had not been put upon the Jews, they would have aimed at the reputation of double zeal by this deceitful oblation, nor would theOFFMAN, “"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. And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation."Some things could not be redeemed, and this passage cites the first of these, namely, the firstborn (firstling) of either ox or sheep. The reason was simply that all the firstborn belonged to Jehovah already. Therefore, they could not be devoted, much less redeemed. They were already devoted and were the property of the priests. In this connection, the regulations concerning unclean animals, already given in Leviticus 27:11-13, are repeated.There was still another category of devoted things that under no circumstances could be redeemed, and that was immediately stated.rupled, under the pretext of offering, to deprive God of what was His own. ELLICOTT, “ (26) Only the firstling of the beasts.—Better, nevertheless the firstlings, &c, as this rendering also suits Leviticus 27:28, which begins with the same particle, and which is translated in the Authorised Version, “not withstanding.” Having laid down the regulations about the four classes of objects

64

which may be vowed to the Lord—viz.: 1, persons (Leviticus 27:2-8); 2, animals (Leviticus 27:9-13); 3, houses (Leviticus 27:14-15); and 4, lands (Leviticus 27:16-25)—the legislator concludes by pointing out two exceptions to the rules about votive offerings hitherto discussed. The two classes of objects which are forbidden to be vowed are (1) the firstlings of beasts and (2) devoted things. The firstlings belonged already to the Lord by an express statute (Exodus 13:2). To vow, therefore, to the Lord that which was His own is a mockery.Which should be the Lord’s firstling.—Rather, which is born as a firstling to the Lord, that is, one which, by virtue of its being a firstling, and by its very birth, is the property of the Lord.

EBC, “EXCLUSIONS FROM THE VOWLeviticus 27:26-33"Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to the Lord, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord’s. And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it the fifth part thereof: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession shall be sold or redeemed i every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men shall he ransomed; he shall surely be put to death. 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. And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof. And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it he 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."The remaining verses of this chapter specify three classes of property which could not be dedicated by a special vow, namely, "the firstling among beasts" (Leviticus 27:26); any "devoted thing" (Leviticus 27:28-29), i.e., anything which had been devoted to the Lord by the ban-as, e.g., all the persons and property in the city of Jericho by Joshua; {Joshua 7:17} and, lastly, "the tithe of the land" (Leviticus 27:30). The reason for prohibiting the vowing of any of these is in every case one and the same; either by the law or by a previous personal act they already belonged to the Lord. To devote them in a vow would therefore be to vow to the Lord that over which one had no right. As for the firstborn, the Lord had declared His everlasting claim on these at the time of the Exodus; {Exodus 13:12-15} to vow to give the Lord His own, had been absurd. To the law previously given, however, concerning the firstling of unclean beasts, {Exodus 13:13} it is here added that, if a man wish to redeem such a firstling, the same law shall apply as in the redemption

65

of what has been vowed; namely, the priest was to appraise it, and then the man whose it had been might redeem it by the payment of the amount thus fixed, increased by one fifth.PETT, “Verse 26-27Firstlings (Leviticus 27:26-27).Leviticus 27:26“Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to Yahweh, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or sheep, it is Yahweh’s.”A firstling cannot be set apart as holy to Yahweh. It is already Yahweh’s. See Exodus 13:2. Such a vow would be meaningless. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:26-28The 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 (Exodus 13:15); the ass was to be redeemed by a sheep or be put to death (Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20); other unclean animals are to be either redeemed at the fixed price, plus one-fifth, or, if not redeemed, sold for the benefit of the sanctuary.

27 If it is one of the unclean animals, it may be bought back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If it is not redeemed, it is to be sold at its set value.

GILL, "And if it be of an unclean beast,.... This is to be understood, not of the firstling of unclean creatures in common, which were to be redeemed with a lamb, and not with money, according to the estimation of the priest, and a fifth part added to that; but of such as were sanctified, or vowed, for the reparation of the sanctuary, as Jarchi notes:

66

then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation; the price the priest should set upon it, how much it was worth in his judgment: and shall add a fifth part of it thereto; to the price, set upon a fifth part of that over and above the sum; this the sanctifier, or he that made the vow, was obliged to pay, if he thought fit to redeem it: or if it be not redeemed; by him, he does not choose to give the price, and the fifth part: then it shall be sold according to thy estimation; to another man, without the fifth part, that chooses to purchase it, and then the purchase money was laid out for sacred uses.ELLICOTT, “ (27) And if it be of an unclean beast.—That is, if he vows the firstling of an unclean beast he could redeem it according to the valuation of the priest with the addition of one-fifth over and above the fixed value. If he did not redeem it the treasurer of the sanctuary sold it to anyone who liked to buy it at this valuation, and the proceeds were devoted to the maintenance and repairs of the sanctuary. As this is at variance with the law laid down in Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20, where it is enacted that the firstborn of an ass is either to be redeemed with a sheep, or is to be put to death, the authorities during the second Temple interpreted the precept in the passage before us as not applying to the firstborn of the unclean animals, but to unclean animals generally which are dedicated for the repairs of the sanctuary.PETT, “Leviticus 27:27“And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to your estimation, and shall add to it the fifth part of it: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your estimation.”Where, however, the firstling is an unclean beast it can be redeemed at its estimated value plus one fifth. This presumably does not apply to an ass which has to be redeemed at the price of a lamb because an ass was especially valuable (Exodus 13:13).

28 “‘But nothing that a person owns and devotes[k] to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or 67

redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord.

BARNES, "Devoted thing - The primary meaning of the Heb. word חרם chērem is something cut off, or shut up. Its specific meaning in the Law is, that which is cut off from common use and given up in some sense to Yahweh, without the right of recal or commutation. It is applied to a field wholly appropriated to the sanctuary Lev_27:21, and to whatever was doomed to destruction 1Sa_15:21; 1Ki_20:42. Our translators have often rendered the word by “cursed,” or “a curse,” which in some places may convey the right sense, but it should be remembered that the terms are not identical in their compass of meaning (Deu_7:26; Jos_6:17-18; Jos_7:1; Isa_34:5; Isa_43:28, etc. Compare Gal_3:13).

Of man and beast - This passage does not permit human sacrifices. Man is elsewhere clearly recognized as one of the creatures which were not to be offered in sacrifice Exo_13:13; Exo_34:20; Num_18:15.Therefore the application of the word חרם chērem to man is made exclusively in

reference to one rightly doomed to death and, in that sense alone, given up to Yahweh. The man who, in a right spirit, either carries out a sentence of just doom on an offender, or who, with a single eye to duty, slays an enemy in battle, must regard himself as God’s servant rendering up a life to the claim of the divine justice (compare Rom_13:4). It was in this way that Israel was required to destroy the Canaanites at Hormah (Num_21:2-3; compare Deu_13:12-18), and that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord 1Sa_15:33. In all such instances, a moral obligation rests upon him whose office it is to take the life: he has to look upon the object of his stroke as under a ban to the Lord (compare Deu_20:4; Gal_3:13). Therefore, there can be neither redemption nor commutation.It is evident that the righteousness of this law is not involved in the sin of rash or foolish vows, such as Saul’s 1Sa_14:24 or Jephthah’s Jdg_11:30.And it seems hardly needful to add that sacrifice, as it is represented both in the Law and in the usage of the patriarchs, is something very different from consecration under a

ban, though a tiring to be sacrificed might come under the designation of חרם chērem in its wider sense. The sacrifice was always the offering up of the innocent life of a creature chosen, approved, and without spot or blemish.

CLARKE, "No devoted thing - shall be sold or redeemed - This is the חרם cherem, which always meant an absolute unredeemable grant to God.

GILL, "Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord,.... This is a different vow from the former, expressed by "sanctifying"; for though

68

"sanctifying" and "devoting" were both vows, yet the latter had an execration or curse added to it, by which a man imprecated a curse upon himself, if that itself, which he devoted, was put to any other use than that for which he devoted it; wherefore this sort of vow was absolute and irrevocable, and what was vowed was unalienable, and therefore not to be sold or redeemed as afterwards expressed, whereas things sanctified might: of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; but must be put to the use for which it was devoted. This must be understood of such as were his own, and he had a right to dispose of; which were in his own power, as Aben Ezra interprets the phrase, "of all that he hath": if of men, they must be such as were his slaves, which he had a despotic power over; such as he could sell, or give to another, or leave to his children for a perpetual inheritance, Lev_25:46; and could dispose of as he pleased, and so devote to the service of the priests: thus Jarchi interprets it of menservants and maidservants, Canaanitish ones; and if of beasts, such as were his own property, and not another's; and if of fields, such as were his possession by inheritance. Some Jewish writers, as Abendana, from the phrase, "of all that he hath", gather, that a man might devote only a part of what he had, and not the whole; and so it is said in the Misnah,"a man may devote of his flock and of his herd, of his servants and maidens Canaanites, and of the field of his possession; but if he devote all of them, they are not devoted (k),''the vow is null and void; and so one of the commentators (l) upon it says, he may devote some movable things, but not all; some of his Canaanitish servants and maidens, but not all; some part of the field of his possession, but not the whole: but a man's children, and Hebrew servants, and purchased fields, according to the Jewish canon, might not be devoted;"if anyone devotes his son or his daughter, his servant or his handmaid, that are Hebrews, or the field of his purchase, they are not devoted (or to be reckoned so), for no man devotes (or ought to devote) what is not his own (m).''A commentator (n) excepts his daughter, and says, he may devote his daughter, because he may sell her while a minor, but not an adult virgin; see Exo_21:7, every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord; and therefore not to be appropriated to any use but his, nor to be meddled with, not even touched or handled by any but the priests, as the most holy things that were eatable were only to be eaten by them.

JAMISON, "no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, ... shall be sold or redeemed — This relates to vows of the most solemn kind - the devotee accompanying his vow with a solemn imprecation on himself not to fail in accomplishing his declared purpose.

K&D 28-29, “Moreover, nothing put under the ban, nothing that a man had devoted (banned) to the Lord of his property, of man, beast, or the field of his possession, was to be sold or redeemed, because it was most holy (see at Lev_2:3). The man laid under the ban was to be put to death. According to the words of Lev_27:28, the individual Israelite was quite at liberty to ban, not only his cattle and field, but also men who belonged to him, that is to say, slaves and children. ֶהֱחִרים signifies to dedicate something to the

69

Lord in an unredeemable manner, as cherum, i.e., ban, or banned. חרם (to devote, or ban), judging from the cognate words in the Arabic, signifying prohibere, vetare, illicitum facere, illicitum, sacrum, has the primary signification “to cut off,” and denotes that which is taken away from use and abuse on the part of men, and surrendered to God in an irrevocable and unredeemable manner, viz., human beings by being put to death, cattle and inanimate objects by being either given up to the sanctuary for ever or destroyed for the glory of the Lord. The latter took place, no doubt, only with the property of idolaters; at all events, it is commanded simply for the infliction of punishment on idolatrous towns (Deu_13:13.). It follows from this, however, that the vow of banning could only be made in connection with persons who obstinately resisted that sanctification of life which was binding upon them; and that an individual was not at liberty to devote a human being to the ban simply at his own will and pleasure, otherwise the ban might have been abused to purposes of ungodliness, and have amounted to a breach of the law, which prohibited the killing of any man, even though he were a slave (Exo_21:20). In a manner analogous to this, too, the owner of cattle and fields was only allowed to put them under the ban when they had been either desecrated by idolatry or abused to unholy purposes. For there can be no doubt that the idea which lay at the foundation of the ban was that of a compulsory dedication of something which resisted or impeded sanctification; so that in all cases in which it was carried into execution by the community or the magistracy, it was an act of the judicial holiness of God manifesting itself in righteousness and judgment.

COFFMAN, “"Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto Jehovah of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto Jehovah. No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."The word "devoted" in this passage has the simple meaning of "accursed."[11] We may be certain, therefore, that the authority thus to "devote" another human being did not belong to any individual in the ancient Jewish society. Meyrick has this further explanation: "The devotion by ban ([~cherem]) of any object or person was not to be done by private persons, at their own will, but was performed by the magistrates, under known conditions and laws; e.g., the cities of idolaters, such as Jericho, were so devoted."[12]Another example of a person so devoted is that of Agag, king of the Amalekites, whom Saul spared alive, contrary to the will of God (1 Samuel 15). A footnote in the old Polyglot Bible gives the meaning of this passage perfectly. "It means that none who were condemned capitally, or devoted to certain death, such as murderers, sodomites, idolaters, and pagan Canaanites (whom God had ordered to be destroyed), could, on any terms whatever be redeemed."[13]

70

"Any allegations to the effect that the Mosaic Law permitted human sacrifice is false. When God gave a list of animals that could be offered to him in sacrifice, humans were expressly omitted, therefore forbidden to be offered in sacrifice."[14]COKE, “Verse 28-29Leviticus 27:28-29. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, &c.— The word which we render a vow, in the second verse, is נדר neder, by which, (whoever devoted any thing to God,) there remained a power of redemption. Another kind of vow called חרם cherem, is here mentioned; whereby, (whoever devoted any thing to God;) there remained no power of redemption. Things thus devoted were most holy; i.e. so solemnly adjudged or separated to religious uses, that they could not be at all alienated. Some have supposed that cherem signifies a vow, with a curse or imprecation upon themselves if the thing was not employed according to that vow. Every thing thus devoted, was never to be separated from the Lord's service: whether of man or beast, it was to continue in that service till death; which is the whole meaning of the phrase in the 29th verse, rendered, certainly, too ambiguously both in ours and many other versions; but which it is amazing to find that men of learning, but of deistical principles, have perverted in such a manner, as if it countenanced and inculcated the offering of human sacrifices among the Jews. The plain meaning of the verse is only this, that nothing devoted of men shall be redeemed; but shall surely die; in the original, dying he shall die, (as in Genesis 2:17.) i.e. shall continue till death in this devoted state. Thus Samuel, for instance, was vowed from infancy unto the Lord, to serve him all the days of his life; and, accordingly, his mother brought him to abide with him for ever: i.e. till he should die, as in this verse. Houbigant, however, renders this verse, whoever of men shall be devoted, shall not be redeemed, but shall be put to death: and he understands it as referring entirely to the divine anathema upon the Canaanites. Dr. Doddridge is nearly of the same opinion; "for," says he, "this passage refers to a vow to destroy the inhabitants of any place which they made war against, and was intended to make them cautious in laying themselves under such obligations. Compare Numbers 1:3. Deuteronomy 17:19. Joshua 18-6:17 ; Joshua 24:26; see also Judges 21:5. 1Samuel 24:22." Some of our modern infidels have enlarged with great satisfaction upon this capital defect, as they think it, of the Jewish law: but either interpretation of the words above given, renders their triumph weak and insignificant. Many excellent writers of ours, however, have been at the pains copiously to vindicate this passage: and those who are inclined to see more upon the subject, may consult Doddridge's Theological Lectures, page 358, and the authors there quoted by him. ELLICOTT, “Verse 28(28) Notwithstanding no devoted thing.—Better, Nevertheless, no banned thing (see Leviticus 27:26), that is, unlike those things consecrated to God by the vow hitherto spoken of, anything which the vower devoted to God under a solemn ban cannot be redeemed.

71

Both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession.—This shows the extent to which a man may go in exercising his power to devote things to God in this manner. He was perfectly at liberty to ban not only his cattle and his otherwise inalienable inherited land, but also those human beings over whom he had control—his children and slaves.Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.—Being most holy, any thing or person thus devoted to the Lord could neither be sold by the officials of the sanctuary nor be redeemed by the vower who had in this manner banned the objects of his vow. All gifts devoted under the ban became the property of the priests. (See Leviticus 27:17; Numbers 18:14; Ezekiel 44:29.)TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:28 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: every devoted thing [is] most holy unto the LORD.Ver. 28. Notwithstanding no devoted.] Hitherto of things consecrate; now of things execrate, whereof see a command, [Deuteronomy 13:15; Deuteronomy 13:17] an example. [Numbers 21:2] These could not be sold, nor redeemed, but must remain with the priest: if it were a beast, then to be put to death.No devoted thing.] No anathema: so the offerings of the temple were called. [Luke 21:5]EBC, “THE LAW OF THE BANLeviticus 27:28-29"Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."Neither could any "devoted thing" be given to the Lord by a vow, and for the same reason-that it belonged to Him already. But it is added that, unlike that which has been vowed, the Lord’s firstlings and the tithes, that which has been devoted may neither be sold nor redeemed. If it be a person which is thus "devoted," "he shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 27:29). The reason of this law is found in the nature of the herem or ban. It devoted to the Lord only such persons and things as were in a condition of irreformable hostility and irreconcilable antagonism to the kingdom of God. By the ban such were turned over to God, in order to the total nullification of their power for evil; by destroying whatever was capable of destruction, as the persons and all living things that belonged to them; and by devoting to the Lord’s service in the sanctuary and priesthood such of their

72

property as, like silver, gold, and land, was in its nature incapable of destruction. In such devoted persons or things no man therefore was allowed to assert any personal claim or interest, such as the right of sale or of redemption would imply. Elsewhere the Israelite is forbidden even to desire the silver or gold that was on the idols in devoted cities, {Deuteronomy 7:25} or to bring it into his house or tent, on penalty of being himself banned or devoted like them; a threat which was carried out in the case of Achan, {Joshua 7:1-26} who, for appropriating a wedge of gold and a garment which had been devoted, according to the law here and elsewhere declared, was summarily put to death.This is not the place to enter fully into a discussion of the very grave questions which arise in connection with this law of the ban, in which it is ordered that "none devoted," "whether of man or beast," "shall be ransomed," but "shall be surely put to death." The most familiar instance of its application is furnished by the case of the Canaanitish cities, which Joshua, in accordance with this law of Leviticus 27:28-29, utterly destroyed, with their inhabitants and every living thing that was in them. There are many sincere believers in Christ who find it almost impossible to believe that it can be true that God commanded such a slaughter as this; and the difficulty well deserves a brief consideration. It may not indeed be possible wholly to remove it from every mind; but one may well call attention, in connection with these verses, to certain considerations which should at least suffice very greatly to relieve its stress.In the first place, it is imperative to remember that, if we accent the teaching of Scripture, we have before us in this history, not the government of man, but the government of God, a true theocracy. Now it is obvious that if even fallible men may be rightly granted power to condemn men to death, for the sake of the public good, much more must this right be conceded, and that without any limitation, to the infinitely righteous and infallible King of kings, if, in accord with the Scripture declarations, He was, literally and really, the political Head (if we may be allowed the expression) of the Israelitish nation. Further, if this absolute right of God in matters of life and death be admitted, as it must be; it is plain that He may rightly delegate the execution of His decrees to human agents. If this right is granted to one of our fellow men, as to a king or a magistrate, much more to God.Granting that the theocratic government of Israel was a historical fact, the only question then remaining as to the right of the ban, concerns the justice of its application in particular cases. With regard to this, we may concede that it was quite possible that men might sometimes apply this law without Divine authority; but we are not required to defend such cases, if any be shown, any more than to excuse the infliction of capital punishment in America sometimes by lynch law. These cases furnish no argument against its infliction after due legal process, and by legitimate governmental authority. As to the terrible execution of this law of the ban, in the destruction of the inhabitants of the Canaantish cities, if the fact of the theocratic authority be granted, it is not so difficult to justify this as some have imagined. Nor, conversely, when the actual facts are thoroughly known, can the

73

truth of the statement of the Scripture that God commanded this terrible destruction, be regarded as irreconcilable with those moral perfections which Scripture and reason alike attribute to the Supreme Being.The researches and discoveries of recent years have let in a flood of light upon the state of society prevailing among those Canaanitish tribes at the date of their destruction; and they warrant us in saying that in the whole history of our race it would be hard to point to any civilised community which has sunken to such a depth of wickedness and moral pollution. As we have already seen, the book of Leviticus gives many dark hints of unnamable horrors among the Canaanitish races: the fearful cruelties of the worship of Molech, and the unmentionable impurities of the cult of Ashtoreth; the prohibition among some of these of female chastity, requiring that all be morally sacrificed- one cannot go into these things. And when now we read in Holy Scripture that the infinitely pure, holy and righteous God commanded that these utterly depraved and abandoned communities should be extirpated from the face of the earth, is it, after all, so hard to believe that this should be true? Nay, may we not rather with abundant reason say that it would have been far more difficult to reconcile with the character of God it He had suffered them any longer to exist?Nor have we yet fully stated the case. For we must, in addition, recall the fact that these corrupt communities, which by this law of the ban were devoted to utter destruction, were in no out-of-the-way corner of the world, but on one of its chief highways. The Phoenicians, for instance, more than any people of that time, were the navigators and travellers of the age; so that from Canaan as a center this horrible moral pestilence was inevitably carried by them hither and thither, a worse than the "black death," to the very extremities of the known world. Have we then so certainly good reason to call in question the righteousness of the law which here ordains that no person thus devoted should be ransomed, but be surely put to death? Rather are we inclined to see in this law of the theocratic kingdom. and its execution in Canaan-so often held up as an illustration of the awful cruelty of the old theocratic regime-not only a conspicuous vindication of the righteousness and justice of God, but a no less illustrious manifestation of his mercy; -of His mercy, not merely to Israel, but to the whole human race of that age, who because of this deadly infection of moral evil had otherwise again everywhere sunk to such unimaginable depths of depravity as to have required a second flood for the cleansing of the world. This certainly was the way in which the Psalmist regarded it, {Psalms 136:17-22} he praised Jehovah as One who "smote great kings, and slew famous kings, and gave their land for a heritage, even a heritage unto Israel His servant: for HIS MERCY endureth forever"; a thought which is again more formally expressed {Psalms 62:12} in the words: "Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for Thou tenderest to every man according to his work."Nor can we leave this law of the ban without noting the very solemn suggestion which it contains that there may be in the universe persons who, despite the great redemption, are morally irredeemable, hopelessly obdurate; for whom, under the

74

government of a God infinitely righteous and merciful, nothing remains but the execution of the ban-the "eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels"; {Matthew 25:41} "a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries". {Hebrews 10:27} And this, not merely although, but BECAUSE God’s "mercy endureth forever."Could any better system be imagined by which to convert a slavish and superstitious multitude into a nation at once humble and pure and gallant--a nation of brothers and of worshippers, chastened by a genuine sense of ill desert and of responsibility, and yet braced and fired by the conviction of an exalted destiny?To do this, and also to lead mankind to liberty, to rescue them from sensuous worship, and prepare them for a system yet more spiritual, to teach the human race that life is not repose but warfare, pilgrimage and aspiration, and to sow the seeds of beliefs and expectations which only an atoning Mediator and an Incarnate God could satisfy, this was the meaning of the Exodus.PETT, “Verse 28-29Devoted Things (Leviticus 27:28-29).Up to this point if something was not redeemed it could be either used by or sold by the priests. But ‘devoted’ things would seem to indicate things irrevocably devoted to Yahweh. This was seemingly the most serious of vows and the devoted thing became most holy to Yahweh and could neither be sold nor redeemed. Either it was kept permanently within the tabernacle or it was burned. Normally such things would be such as for some special reason were to be seen as sacred, possibly with the hope of making the vow more effective.Leviticus 27:28“Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote to Yahweh of all that he has, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy to Yahweh.”If a man ‘devotes’ something to Yahweh in this way, then whatever it is, whether man, beast, or field of permanent possession, it is most holy to Yahweh and unredeemable. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:28, Leviticus 27:29Whatever is already cherem (a word here first used as a term well understood), that is, devoted 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, like the Canaanites at Hormah (Numbers 21:2), or of beast, as the sheep and oxen of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:21), or of the field, as referred to in Leviticus 27:21, or of

75

other inanimate objects, as the cities of Hormah (Numbers 21:2), 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) 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. 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 Deuteronomy 13:13; Joshua 6:17)" (Wordsworth).

29 “‘No person devoted to destruction[l] may be ransomed; they are to be put to death.

CLARKE, "Which shall be devoted of men - Every man who is devoted shall surely be put to death; or, as some understand it, be the Lord’s property, or be employed in his service, till death. The law mentioned in these two verses has been appealed to by the enemies of Divine revelation as a proof, that under the Mosaic dispensation human sacrifices were offered to God; but this can never be conceded. Had there been such a law, it certainly would have been more explicitly revealed, and not left in the compass of a few words only, where the meaning is very difficult to be ascertained; and the words themselves differently translated by most interpreters. That there were persons, devoted to destruction under the Mosaic dispensation, is sufficiently evident, for the whole Canaanitish nations were thus devoted by the Supreme Being himself, because the cup of their iniquity was full; but that they were not sacrificed to God, the whole history sufficiently declares. Houbigant understands the passage as speaking of these alone; and says, Non alios licebat anathemate voveri, quam Chananaeos, quos jusserat Deus ad internecionem deleri. “It was not lawful to devote any persons to death but the Canaanites, whom God had commanded to be entirely extirpated.” This is perfectly correct; but he might have added that it was because they were the most impure idolaters, and because the cup of their iniquity was full. These God commanded to be put to death; and who can doubt his right to do so, who is the Maker of man, and the Fountain of justice? But what has this to do with human sacrifices? Just nothing. No

76

more than the execution of an ordinary criminal, or a traitor, in the common course of justice, has to do with a sacrifice to God. In the destruction of such idolaters, no religious formality whatever was observed; nor any thing that could give the transaction even the most distant semblance of a sacrifice. In this way Jericho was commanded to be destroyed, Jos_6:17, and the Amalekites, Deu_25:19; 1Sa_15:3 : but in all these cases the people commanded to be destroyed were such sinners as God’s justice did not think proper to spare longer. And has not every system of law the same power? And do we not concede such power to the civil magistrate, for the welfare of the state? God, who is the sovereign arbiter of life and death, acts here in his juridical and legislative capacity; but these are victims to justice, not religious sacrifices. It may be necessary just farther to note that two kinds of vows are mentioned in this chapter: -1. The נדר neder, (see on Leviticus 7 (note))., which comprehends all those things

which, when once devoted, might be redeemed at a certain price, according to the valuation of the priest.2. The חרם cherem, those things vowed to God of which there remained no power of

redemption; they were most holy, i. e., so absolutely devoted to God that they could neither be changed, alienated, nor redeemed: probably because no mental reservation had been made, as in the above case may be supposed. On this ground the word was afterward applied to the most solemn and awful kind of excommunication, meaning a person so entirely devoted to the stroke of vindictive justice, as never to be capable of receiving pardon; and hence the word may be well applied in this sense to the Canaanites, the cup of whose iniquity was full, and who were consigned, without reprieve, to final extermination.

GILL, "None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed,.... This is said, not of such men as are devoted to the Lord, as in the preceding verse; for it is not said here as there, "none devoted unto the Lord", but of such as are devoted to ruin and destruction, for whom there was no redemption, but they must die; nor is it said, "which is devoted by men, but of men", or from among men; whether they be devoted by God himself, as all idolaters, and particularly the seven nations of the land of Canaan, and especially the Amalekites, who therefore were not to be spared on any account, but to be put to death, Exo_22:20. So in the Talmud (o), this is interpreted of Canaanitish servants and handmaids; or whether devoted by men to destruction, either by the people of Israel, as their avowed enemies they should take in war, whom, and their cities, they vowed to the Lord they would utterly destroy, Num_21:2; and of such Aben Ezra interprets the words of the text; or such as were doomed by the civil magistrates to die for capital crimes, by stoning, burning, strangling, and slaying with the sword. And this sense is given into by many; because the judges kill with many kinds of death, therefore, says Chaskuni, it is said "every devoted thing", as if he should say, with whatsoever of the four kinds of death the judges pass sentence of destruction on a man, he must die that death; so Jarchi and Ben Melech interpret it of such as go out to be slain, i.e. by the decree of the judges; and if one says, his estimation, or the price of him be upon me, he says nothing, it is of no avail: but shall surely be put to death; as the same writer observes, lo, he goes forth to die, he shall not be redeemed, neither by price nor estimation. The Targum of Jonathan

77

is,"he shall not he redeemed with silver, but with burnt offerings, and holy sacrifices, and petitions of mercy, because he is condemned by a sentence to be slain.''And of either, or of all of these, may the words be understood, and not as they are by some, as if Jewish parents and masters had such a power over their children and servants to devote them to death, or in such a manner devote them, that they were obliged to put them to death; for though they had power in some cases to sell, yet had no power over their lives to take them away, or to devote them to death, which would be a breach of the sixth command, and punishable with death; even a master that accidentally killed his servant did not escape punishment; nay, if he did him any injury, by smiting out an eye, or a tooth, he was obliged to give him his freedom, and much less had he power to take away his life, or devote him to destruction. Some have thought, that it was through a mistaken sense of this law, that Jephthah having made a rash vow sacrificed his daughter, Jdg_11:30; but it is a question whether he did or not. JAMISON, "shall surely be put to death — This announcement imported not that the person was to be sacrificed or doomed to a violent death; but only that he should remain till death unalterably in the devoted condition. The preceding regulations were evidently designed to prevent rashness in vowing (Ecc_5:4) and to encourage serious and considerate reflection in all matters between God and the soul (Luk_21:4).ELLICOTT, “ (29) None devoted, which shall be devoted of men.—Better, Every one banned, which shall be banned of men, that is, every one banned from amongst men, or every human being banned, is not to be redeemed. Like the cattle and the patrimonial estates, when once devoted to God by a vow of banning, the man thus banned by a vow comes irretrievably under the class of “most holy unto the Lord,” or one irrevocably withdrawn from the power of man.But shall surely be put to death.—Not as a sacrifice to God, but, on the contrary, to be removed out of His sight. This is the apparent import of the passage, and seems to be confirmed by the melancholy narrative of Jephtha and his daughter (Judges 11:30). This seems to have been the interpretation put on the law in question during the second Temple, since it is embodied in the Chaldee Versions, which render the verse as follows: “Every vow that shall be vowed of man, shall not be redeemed with money, but with burnt offerings and with hallowed victims, and with supplications for mercy before the Lord, because such are to be put to death.” It is, however, supposed that this Awful vow of banning could only be exercised on notorious malefactors and idolaters as dangerous to the faith of the Israelites, that it could not be made by any private individual on his own responsibility, and that when such cases occurred the community or the Sanhedrin carried out the ban as an act of judicial necessity, thus showing it to be “most holy unto the Lord.” Accordingly, Leviticus 27:28-29 treat of two different cases. The former regulates objects “banned unto the Lord,” which differs from the vow of dedication discussed in Leviticus 27:2-8 only in so far that it is unredeemable, whilst Leviticus 27:29 regulates the banning enacted by the law itself (Exodus 22:19), or pronounced by the court of justice on a man who is irretrievably to be put to death.PETT, “Leviticus 27:29

78

“No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.”In the case of a man such a person devoted to Yahweh must be put to death. They are ‘most holy’ to Yahweh. This would apply to those who were seen as deserving of the death penalty such as murderers, adulterers, idolaters, blasphemers and so on. They were devoted to Yahweh. They could not then be redeemed. They must be put to death. Compare Achan in Joshua 7.

30 “‘A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord.

CLARKE, "All the tithe of the land - This God claims as his own; and it is spoken of here as being a point perfectly settled, and concerning which there was neither doubt nor difficulty. See my view of this subject Gen_28:22 (note), to which I do not see the necessity of adding any thing.

GILL, "And all the tithe of the land,.... Of which there were various sorts, the first tithe, the tithe out of the tithe, the second tithe, and the poor's tithe, which are generally reduced to three,"The first tenth part of all increase I gave to the sons of Aaron, who ministered at Jerusalem: another tenth part I sold away, and went, and spent it every year at Jerusalem:'' (Tobit 1:7)so Maimonides (p) says,"after they had separated the first tithe every year, they separate the second tithe, as it is said Deu_14:22; and in the third year, and in the sixth, they separate the poor's tithe, instead of the second tithe:''so that, properly speaking, there were but two tithes, though commonly reckoned three; the tithes of all eatables were given to the Levites every year, and a tenth part of that given by the Levites to the priests, and the second tithe was eaten by the owners; instead of which, according to the above writer, in the third and sixth years it was given to the poor, and called theirs; of this second tithe, Jarchi interprets this law, and so does Maimonides (q): whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's: is to be given to him as an acknowledgment of his being the proprietor of the land, and that all the increase of it is owing to his blessing, and therefore is given in way of gratitude to

79

him: the former of these takes in all sorts of corn that is man's food, as wheat and barley; and the latter wine and oil, and all sorts of fruits that are eatable; for it is said to be a general rule, that whatever is for food, and is preserved (having an owner, and not being common), and grows up out of the earth, is bound to tithes (r): it is holy unto the Lord; the first tithe was eaten by the priests and Levites only, and the other before the Lord in Jerusalem only, and that by clean persons. Something of this kind obtained among the Heathens, it may be in imitation of this, particularly among the Grecians; Pisistratus (s) tells Solon, that everyone of the Athenians gave a tenth part of his inheritance, not to me, says he, who was their governor, but for public sacrifices, and the common good, and when engaged in war, to defray the charge of it; and so, by the oracle of Apollo, the Corcyraenans were directed to send to Olympia and Delphos the tenth part of the produce of their fields (t); and by the same oracle, the island of the Syphnians, in which was a golden mine, were ordered to bring the tenth of it to the same place (u). So the Pelasgi (w) in a time of scarcity vowed the tithes of all their increase to the gods, and having obtained their wish, devoted the tenth of all their fruits and cattle to them.

JAMISON 30-33, “all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land — This law gave the sanction of divine authority to an ancient usage (Gen_14:20; Gen_28:22). The whole produce of the land was subjected to the tithe tribute - it was a yearly rent which the Israelites, as tenants, paid to God, the owner of the land, and a thank offering they rendered to Him for the bounties of His providence. (See Pro_3:9; 1Co_9:11; Gal_6:6).

K&D 30-31, “Lastly, the tenth of the land, both of the seed of the land - i.e., not of what was sown, but of what was yielded, the produce of the seed (Deu_14:22), the harvest reaped, or “corn of the threshing-floor,” Num_18:27 - and also of the fruit of the tree, i.e., “the fulness of the press” (Num_18:27), the wine and oil (Deu_14:23), belonged to the Lord, were holy to Him, and could not be dedicated to Him by a vow. At the same time they could be redeemed by the addition of a fifth beyond the actual amount.

CALVIN, "Verse 3030.And all the tithe of the land. In these words God shews that in assigning the tithes to the Levites, He ceded His own rights, inasmuch as they were a kind of royal revenue; and thus He bars all complaint, since otherwise the other tribes might have murmured on being unduly burdened. He therefore appoints the priests as His receivers, to collect in His name what could not be refused without impious and sacrilegious fraudulency. In the provision that, where the tithes are redeemed by a money payment, a fifth part should be added to their value, the object is not that the Levites should make a gain of the loss of others; but, because the owners of property craftily aimed at some advantage in this commutation of corn for money, frauds are

80

thus prevented whereby something would be lost to the Levites by this deceptive exchange. On the same grounds He commands that the animals, whatever they might be, should be given as tithe, and does not permit them to be redeemed by money, since, if the choice had been free, no fat or healthy animal would have ever come to the Levites. Therefore, in this law a remedy was applied to avarice and meanness, and not without good cause; for if the proverb be true, that “good laws spring from evil habits,” (216) it was necessary that so covetous and ill-disposed a people should be restrained in the path of duty by the utmost severity. And although such careful provision was made for the Levites, yet there was scarcely any period in which they did not suffer from want, and sometimes they wandered about half-starved; nay, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, the memory of so great a blessing did not prevent a part of the tithes from being surreptitiously withheld from them; as God complains in Malachi 3:8. Whence it appears that it was not without purpose that the people were so imperiously enjoined to pay them. COFFMAN, “"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is Jehovah's: it is holy unto Jehovah. And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof. And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto Jehovah. 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."The tithe is here introduced as something already known and accepted. It will be remembered that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, and that Jacob also vowed to give "a tenth" unto God. Mentioning the conduct of the Pharisees, Jesus spoke of their "righteousness," including a reference to their payment of tithes, stating at the same time that except our "righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees" we cannot please God. The nearest thing in the N.T. to specific commandment that Christians should pay tithes is found in Hebrews: "Here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" (Hebrews 7:8, KJV). This certainly falls short of a commandment, but declares the acceptability of tithes by Christ in heaven itself. The spirit of Christianity has, in general, accepted the responsibility.It is odd that one could redeem the tithe of his crops and fruit trees, but that he could not redeem the tithe of his flocks and herds. The tenth passed into the hands of the priests, which they received as an unalienable right.In fact, it was forbidden to the person giving a tithe that he should be able to select the animals given. "He shall not search whether it be good or bad" (Leviticus 27:33). Coleman tells how the tithe was taken: "Whatsoever passeth under the rod" (Leviticus 27:32) refers to the custom of counting animals by making them pass in a single file out of an enclosure and marking each tenth animal by a rod dipped in coloring material."[15]

81

The recognition of tithing as a constant obligation of God's people is here inherent in the fact that laws concerning it appear in the list of things that could not be redeemed, "from of old, belonging to the Lord and incapable of being vowed."[16]COKE, “Verse 30Leviticus 27:30. And all the tithe of the land— The tithe is here spoken of as a thing fixed and known; upon which subject see Genesis 28:22. All these tithes (whether of the seed of the land, i.e. the corn; or of the fruit of the tree, i.e. wine and oil; Numbers 18:12; Numbers 20:5. Deuteronomy 14:23.) were to be appropriated to God; i.e. to the maintenance of his priests and ministers. There is a law, indeed, in the last quoted passage of Deuteronomy, which ordains the owners to eat the tithe of their corn, wine, and oil, before the Lord; i.e. in the place where his sanctuary was. But this is to be understood of the tithe of the remainder, after the tenth had been given to the Levites: For, first of all, the first-fruits were to be paid to the priests; Exodus 22:29 chap. Leviticus 2:12 which is reckoned to have been about a sixtieth part of the whole. Then, out of the remainder, they offered the tithes, which were divided into the first and second; the first tithes were paid to the Levites, under which name are comprehended all the ministers of religion of an inferior order to the priests; as the aeditui, door-keepers of the temple, the singers, &c. Out of these tithes, again, the Levites paid a tenth to the priests, Numbers 26:28 and by this offering they owned the priests to be as far superior to them in their office, as they were to the people in general in their office. The second tithes were the tithe of the residue, or remaining nine parts, out of which the owner was obliged either to take a tithe in kind, and carry to Jerusalem, or to the place where the sanctuary was, &c. there to feast before the Lord, with the Levites and the poor; or, if the place was too remote, he turned it into money, to be applied to the same use. Deuteronomy 14:23; Deuteronomy 14:29. But these second tithes were every third year to be distributed among the Levites and the poor within their respective cities; of which see Deuteronomy 14:28-29. Therefore all the difference was, that what was spent in other years at Jerusalem upon the Levites and the poor, was, the third year, spent in their own cities. Thus, according to Selden, the owner paid near one fifth of his whole yearly income. For instance, suppose it was 6000 ephahs, then the terumah, or oblation of first-fruits was 100, i.e. a sixtieth part; of the remaining 5900, the first tithe, 590 was for the Levites; out of which the priest had 59 for his tithe. Then remains 5310, of which the second tithe 531, was, the first and second year, for the Levites and poor at Jerusalem; and every third year for the same at home; see Selden's Dissertation on Tithes. ELLICOTT, “ (30) And all the tithe of the land.—That is, of the soil, or what grows on it, in contradistinction to the tithes of the land mentioned in Leviticus 27:32. The last things mentioned which cannot be dedicated to the Lord by a vow are tithes. Like the firstborn of Animals (see Leviticus 27:26), they already belong to God by another statute. A man, therefore, cannot vow to God what is not his own.

82

Whether of the seed of the land.—That is, what the seed when sown produced in the soil (Numbers 18:21-24; Deuteronomy 14:22-29).TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:30 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.Ver. 30. And all the tithe.] See here in this chapter what a liberal maintenance God allowed the priests: (1.) Various votive oblations, or their redemptions; (2.) All the firstborn, or their redemptions; (3.) Every devoted thing, unless devoted to some particular use; (4.) All the tithes of what kind soever: besides firstfruits, oblations, portions of sacrifices, &c. And I see not, saith a reverend man, (a) but that tithes at least, or some better thing, should be due to the ministers of the gospel by Divine ordinance: and that those that take them from us should give us a better thing, as those here that had a mind to redeem their tithe, were bound by the law to add to the price every fifth penny above the true value. PETT, “Verses 30-34The Law Concerning Tithes (Leviticus 27:30-34).Leviticus 27:30“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is Yahweh’s. It is holy to Yahweh.”That part of the produce of the land which is a tithe is holy to Yahweh. The tithe was one tenth which had originally, while it was relatively sparse in the wilderness, to be set aside for the Levites and priests (see Numbers 18:21; Numbers 18:24). It was their inheritance from Yahweh. Later, in view of the abundance that the land would produce, while still sanctified to Yahweh, the tithe could both be used for a celebratory feast by the producing family as well as in order to provide for the Levites (Deuteronomy 14:22-27; Deuteronomy 15:19-20). Every third year, in ‘the year of tithing’, the poor were also to receive a share (Deuteronomy 14:28). A one tenth share of all the produce in the land would amply provide for all three, with the Levites receiving the major part left over after the feasting PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:30-32Tithes, like the cherem, are introduced as things well known. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:4). Jacob vowed the tenth to the Lord (Genesis 28:22), 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" (Numbers 18:21), and of this tithe they were to pay a tenth to the priests (Numbers 18:26). Being already the Lord's, the tithe of the corn and fruits could not be vowed

83

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.BI 30-33, “All the tithes of the land . . . is the Lord’s.The history of tithesI. The scripture records concerning the law of tithes.

1. Antecedent to the Mosaic legislation. The principle of dedicating a tenth to God was recognised in the act of Abraham, who paid tithes of his spoils to Melchizedek in his sacerdotal rather than his sovereign capacity (Gen_14:20; Heb_7:6). Later, in Jacob’s vow (Gen_28:22), 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.2. The Mosaic statutes. These given in this section lay claim in God’s 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), who were to give a tithe of what they received to the priests (Lev_27:26-28). The sacred festivals were later made occasion for a further tithe (Deu_12:5-6; Deu_12:11; Deu_12:17; Deu_14:22-23); which was allowed to come in money value rather than in kind (Deu_14:24-26).3. Hezekiah’s reformation. This was signalised by the eagerness with which the people came with their tithes (2Ch_31:5-6).4. After the Captivity. Nehemiah made marked and emphatic arrangements concerning the tithing (Neh_10:37; Neh_12:44).5. Prophet’s teachings. Both Amos (4:4) and Malachi (3:10) enforce this as a duty, by severely rebuking the nation for its neglect-as robbing God.6. In Christ’s day. Our Lord exposed and denounced the ostentatious punctiliousness of the Pharisees over their tithing (Mat_23:23).7. Teaching of the New Testament. The fact of the existence of ministers as a distinct Mass, assumes provision made for their maintenance. The necessity for such provision, and the right on which it is founded, are recognised in such texts as Mat_10:10; Luk_10:7; Rom_15:27; 1Co_9:7-14.

II. The ecclesiastical development of the demand for tithes.1. The Fathers urged the obligation of tithing on the earliest Christians. The “Apostolical Canons,” the “Apostolical Constitutions,” St. Cyprian on “The Unity of the Church,” 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.2. The legislation of the first Christian emperors 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.3. Ancient Church councils favoured tithings of land and produce, e.g., the Councils of Tours, A.D. 567; the second Council of Macon, A.D. 585; the Council of Rouen,

84

A.D. 650; of Nantes, A.D. 660; of Metz, 756.4. Its first imperial enactment. Charlemagne (king of the Franks, A.D. 768-814, and Roman Emperor, A.D. 800-814) 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 Christendom; and it became general for a tenth to be paid to the Church.5. Introduction of tithes into England. 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 praedial, or the fruits of the earth, was extended to every species of profit and to the wages of every kind of labour.6. The great and small tithe. The great tithe was made upon the main products of the soil, corn, hay, wood, &c.; the small on the less important growths. To the rector the great tithes of a parish are assigned, and to the vicar the small.7. Tithes paid “in kind.” These claim the tenth portion of the product itself (verses 30-33). 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 flee.” (W. H. Jellie.)

TithesI 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 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 gave back to them all the old prosperity. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)

Giving to GodWhat Abraham gave to Melchizedek, and Jacob vowed at Bethel, has ever appeared most natural for men to set aside for the Lord regularly—the tenth of all. Among the Israelites, there were several kinds of tithe, and yet all cheerfully paid; the tenth for the Lord, paid to the Levites (Num_18:21), and the next tenth, consecrated and feasted on at Jerusalem, or given away to the poor (Deu_12:6; Deu_28:29). Seed or fruit might be redeemed; and there might be good reasons for a man wishing to redeem this part of the

85

tithe. He might require to sow his field, and be in need of the seed of dates or pomegranates to replenish his orchard. Therefore permission is given to redeem these, though still with the addition of a fifth, in order to show that the Lord is jealous, and marks anything that might be a retraction, on the man’s part, of what was due to the Lord. He may redeem this tithe, but it is done cum nota As to the tithe of herd and flock, this is not allowed. Whatever passes under the rod, good or bad, is tithed and taken, inalienably. The Lord does not seek a good animal, where the rod, in numbering, lighted on a bad as the tenth passed by; neither does He admit of the substitution of an inferior animal, if the rod has lighted on the best in the whole flock. He seeks just what is His due, teaching us strict and holy disregard of bye-ends and selfish interests. And thus this book—this Gospel of the Old Testament—ends with stating God’s claims on us, and His expectation of our service and willing devotedness. As the first believers at Pentecost, rejoicing in pardon and the love of God, counted nothing dear to them, nor said that aught they possessed was their own, so ought we to live. We must sit loose from earth; and true love to our Redeemer will set us loose. This giving up of our possessions at God’s call, teaches us to live a pilgrim life, and that is an Abrahamic life—nay, it is the life of faith in opposition to sight. The whole of this concluding chapter has been leading us to the idea of giving to the Lord all we have. It has been making us familiar with the idea, and by example inculcating the practice of like devotedness. God should be all in all to us; he is “God all-sufficient.” Let us part even with common, lawful comforts, and try if He alone be not better than all. Like the child with the stalk of grapes, who picked one grape after another from the cluster, and held it out to her father, till, as affection waxed warm and self faded, she gaily flung the whole into her father’s bosom, and smiled in his face with triumphant delight; so let us do, until, loosening from every comfort, and independent of the help of broken cisterns, we can say, “I am not my own! Whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth whom I desire besides. Thou art to me, as Thou wert to David at the gates of death, ‘All my salvation and all my desire.’” After so much love on God’s part to us, displayed in rich variety of type and shadow, shall we count any sacrifice hard? (A. A. Bonar.)

Are tithes binding on ChristiansIn attempting to settle for ourselves this question, it is to be observed, in order to clear thinking on this subject, that in the law of tithe as here declared there are two elements—the one moral, the other legal—which should be carefully distinguished. First and fundamental is the principle that it is our duty to set apart to God a certain fixed proportion of our income. The other and—technically speaking—positive element in the law is that which declares that the proportion to be given to the Lord is precisely one-tenth. Now, of these two, the first principle is distinctly recognised and reaffirmed in the New Testament, as of continued validity in this dispensation; while, on the other hand, as to the precise proportion of our income to be thus set apart for the Lord, the New Testament writers are everywhere silent. As regards the first principle, St. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, orders that “on the first day of the week”—the day of the primitive Christian worship—“every one” shall “lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.” He adds that he had given the same command also to the churches of Galatia (1Co_16:1-2). This most clearly gives apostolic sanction to the fundamental principle of the tithe, namely, that a definite portion of our income should be set apart for God. While, on the other hand, neither in this connection, where a mention of the law of the tithe might naturally have been expected, if it had been still binding as to the letter, nor in any

86

other place does either St. Paul or any other New Testament writer intimate that the Levitical law, requiring the precise proportion of a tenth, was still in force—a fact which is the more noteworthy that so much is said of the duty of Christian benevolence. To this general statement with regard to the testimony of the New Testament on this subject, the words of our Lord to the Pharisees (Mat_23:23), regarding their tithing of “mint and anise and cummin”—“these ye ought to have done”—cannot be taken as an exception, or as proving that the law is binding for this dispensation; for the simple reason that the present dispensation had not at that time yet begun, and those to whom He spoke were still under the Levitical law, the authority of which He there reaffirms. From these facts we conclude that the law of these verses, in so far as it requires the setting apart to God of a certain definite proportion of our income, is doubtless of continued and lasting obligation; but that, in so far as it requires from all alike the exact proportion of one-tenth, it is binding on the conscience no longer. Nor is it difficult to see why the New Testament should not lay down this or any other precise proportion of giving to income as a universal law. It is only according to the characteristic usage of the New Testament law to leave to the individual conscience very much regarding the details of worship and conduct, which under the Levitical law was regulated by specific rules: which St. Paul explains (Gal_4:1-5) by reference to the fact that the earlier method was intended for and adapted to a lower and more immature stage of religious development; even as a child, during his minority, is kept under guardians and stewards, from whose authority, when he becomes of age, he is free. But, still further, it seems to be forgotten by those who argue for the present and permanent obligation of this law, that it was here for the first time formally appointed by God as a binding law, in connection with a certain Divinely instituted system of theocratic government, which, if carried out, would effectively prevent excessive accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals, and thus secure for the Israelites, in a degree the world has never seen, an equal distribution of property. In such a system it is evident that it would be possible to exact a certain fixed and definite proportion of income for sacred purposes, with the certainty that the requirement would work with perfect justice and fairness to all. But with us social and economic conditions are so very different, wealth is so very unequally distributed, that no such law as that of the tithe could be made to work otherwise than unequally and unfairly. To the very poor it must often be a heavy burden; to the very rich, a proportion so small as to be a practical exemption. While, for the former, the law, if insisted on, would sometimes require a poor man to take bread out of the mouth of wife and children, it would still leave the millionaire with thousands to spend on needless luxuries. The latter might often more easily give nine-tenths of his income than the former could give one-twentieth. It is thus no surprising thing that the inspired men who laid the foundations of the New Testament Church did not reaffirm the law of the tithe as to the latter. And yet, on the other hand, let us not forget that the law of the tithe, as regards the moral element of the law, is still in force. It forbids the Christian to leave, as so often, the amount he will give for the Lord’s work, to impulse and caprice. Statedly and conscientiously he is to “lay by him in store as the Lord hath prospered him.” If any ask how much should the proportion be, one might say that by fair inference the tenth might safely be taken as an average minimum of giving, counting rich and poor together (see 2Co_8:7-9). (S. H. Kellogg, D. D.)

87

31 Whoever would redeem any of their tithe must add a fifth of the value to it.

GILL, "And if a man, will redeem ought of his tithes,.... Of his own, and not his neighbour's, as Jarchi observes; for if he redeemed the tithes of his neighbour, but did not add a fifth part, which he was obliged to do if he redeemed his own, as follows: he shall add thereunto the fifth part thereof; besides giving the value for what part of his tithes he redeemed, he gave a fifth part of that sum over and above; as, supposing the tithe was worth fifty shillings, then he gave that, and ten shillings more, and so in proportion. The use of this redemption, as Jarchi suggests, was, that he might have liberty of eating it in any place: for he understands it of the second tithe, as before observed, and which was to be eaten at Jerusalem.ELLICOTT, “(31) And if a man will at all redeem.—Better And if a man wishes to redeem. (See Leviticus 27:13; Leviticus 27:19) Though a man may not vow tithes, being already the Lord’s, yet if he wishes he may redeem them by adding one-fifth to the actual value of them. According to the authorities during the second Temple, anyone was allowed to redeem the tithes due from another person by paying the exact value for them, without the addition of the fifth part. The tithes could then be eaten in any place, but the redemption money had to be taken to Jerusalem, where it was spent in sociable feasts, to which the Levite, the stranger, and the poor were invited.PETT, “Leviticus 27:31“And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part of it.”But if for some reason a man wished to retain part of what he would normally give as a tithe he must redeem it by paying its value plus one fifth.

32 Every tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod—will be holy to the Lord. 88

BARNES, "Whatsoever passeth under the rod - 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. Compare the margin reference.

For a more full explanation of what relates to tithes, see the margin reference and Gen_14:20; Deu_14:22, Deu_14:28.

CLARKE, "Whatsoever passeth under the rod - The signification of this verse is well given 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, about to give the tenth to the Lord, 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: the door being opened, the young ones ran out to join themselves to their dams; and as they passed out the owner stood with his rod over them, and counted one, two, three, four, five, etc., and when the tenth came, he touched it with the coloured rod, by which it was distinguished to be the tithe calf, sheep, etc., and whether poor or lean, perfect or blemished, that was received as the legitimate tithe.” It seems to be in reference to this custom that the Prophet Ezekiel, speaking to Israel, says: I will cause you to pass under the rod, and will bring you into the bond of the covenant - you shall be once more claimed as the Lord’s property, and be in all things devoted to his service, being marked or ascertained, by especial providences and manifestations of his kindness, to be his peculiar people.

GILL, "And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock,.... Of oxen and sheep, as the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; for this law only concerns such, as Maimonides (x) observes, for none but clean beasts were tithed, though the firstlings of unclean beasts were to be redeemed: even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord: which being slain, the blood and fat were to be offered the altar, and the flesh eaten by the owners, as Jarchi observes; who adds, this is not reckoned with the rest of the gifts of the priesthood; and we do not find it was given to the priests: the "rod", under which these are said to pass, is either the shepherd's rod, as Aben Ezra under, which they passed morning and evening, when led out or brought in, as in Jer_33:13; or the rod of the tither: the manner of tithing, as described by Maimonides, was this;"he gathers all the lambs and all the calves into a field, and makes a little door to it, so that two cannot go out at once; and he places their dams without, and they bleat, so that the lambs hear their voice, and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said, "whatsoever passeth under the rod"; for it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand; and when they go out of the fold, after another, he begins and counts them with the rod,

89

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and the tenth that goes out, whether male or female, whether perfect or blemished, he marks with a red mark, and says, this is the tithe (y):''the time of tithing the cattle was on the first of Elul or August; for so it is said (z),"the first of Elul is the beginning of the year for the tithing of beasts;''when they tithed all that were born the preceding year: but we are elsewhere told (a), there were three times for tithing beasts; fifteen days before the passover, (which was the last of Adar or February,) and fifteen days before the Pentecost, and fifteen days before the feast of tabernacles, which was the last of Elul or August; and these tithings were made for the sake of those that went up to these feasts, that it might be certain the cattle sold and eaten were tithed. K&D 32-34, “With regard to all the tithes of the flock and herd, of all that passed

under the rod of the herdsman, the tenth (animal) was to be holy to the Lord. No discrimination was to be made in this case between good and bad, and no exchange to be made: if, however, this did take place, the tenth animal was to be holy as well as the one for which it was exchanged, and could not be redeemed. The words “whatsoever passeth under the rod” may be explained from the custom of numbering the flocks by driving the animals one by one past the shepherd, who counted them with a rod stretched out over them (cf. Jer_33:13; Eze_20:37). They mean everything that is submitted to the process of numbering, and are correctly explained by the Rabbins as referring to the fact that every year the additions to the flock and herd were tithed, and not the whole of the cattle. In these directions the tithe is referred to as something well known. In the laws published hitherto, it is true that no mention has been made of it; but, like the burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, it formed from time immemorial an essential part of the worship of God; so that not only did Jacob vow that he would tithe for the Lord all that He should give him in a foreign land (Gen_28:22), but Abraham gave a tenth of his booty to Melchizedek the priest (Gen_14:20). Under these circumstances, it was really unnecessary to enjoin upon the Israelites for the first time the offering of tithe to Jehovah. All that was required was to incorporate this in the covenant legislation, and bring it into harmony with the spirit of the law. This is done here in connection with the holy consecrations; and in Num_18:20-32 instructions are given in the proper place concerning their appropriation, and further directions are added in Deu_12:6, Deu_12:11; Deu_14:22. respecting a second tithe. - The laws contained in this chapter are brought to a close in v. 34 with a new concluding formula (see Lev_26:46), by which they are attached to the law given at Sinai.

COKE, “Verse 32Leviticus 27:32. Whatsoever passeth under the rod— The Jews understand this of the tithing rod, a rod coloured with ochre, with which a man stood at the door of the field, and numbered the cattle as they came out, marking every tenth with his rod: but Bochart understands it more simply of the shepherd's rod or crook, under which the flock passed as often as he numbered them; which was generally twice a day: of this Jeremiah speaks, chap. Jeremiah 33:13 and to this Ezekiel alludes, saying, in God's name, I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant: i.e. I will take the same care of you, as a good

90

shepherd does of his flock, which he numbers, and accurately surveys, by making them pass under his rod one by one. Ezekiel 20:37.REFLECTIONS.—The book thus concludes; and from the whole of these commandments we have much to learn. What thankfulness is due for the mercies we enjoy in the clear light of gospel-day, when these shadows are passed away, and Christ the Sun of righteousness is risen, to guide our feet into the paths of peace! We now no longer see through the dark glass of types and figures, but face to face behold a reconciled God in Christ. The burdensome services of ceremonial ordinances are ceased, and all our present required offering is the broken and contrite heart. In this liberty, wherewith Christ has made us free, every humble believer rejoices; and while ceremonial uncleanness is no longer his concern, he labours more solicitously to cleanse himself from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and to perfect holiness in the fear of God. ELLICOTT, “(32) Whatsoever passeth under the rod.—That is, for the purpose of counting and tithing them. The manner in which this was done is described by the Jewish canonists as follows: “The owner is to gather all his lambs or all his calves into the fold and make a little door to it, so that two should not be able to go out at once. He is to place their dams without. As they bleat the lambs hear their voice and go out of the fold to meet them, as it is said, ‘whatsoever passeth under the rod’ (Leviticus 27:32), since it must pass of itself, and not be brought out by his hand. And as they come out of the fold one after another he counts them with the rod, one, two, three, etc., and the tenth which comes out, whether it be male or female, whether it be perfect or blemished, he marks it with a red mark, and says, ‘This is the tithe.’” It is to this custom that the prophet alludes when he says, “I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant” (Ezekiel 20:37), that is, shall once more claim you, being marked as belonging to the Lord.TRAPP, “Leviticus 27:32 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.Ver. 32. Passeth under the rod.] Coloured at the end with red, to mark out the tenth, as they passed out. See Jeremiah 33:13.

PARKER, “"... whatsoever passeth under the rod."— Leviticus 27:32This passage brings under our attention the fact that many passages of Scripture have been misinterpreted.—The misinterpretations of Scripture have been full of mischief.—Men should make sure of the interpretation before they assert the doctrine.—This has always been understood to refer to punishment, the figure being that God is smiting every one of his flock, and is only approving of them according to the measure of stripes which that flock lovingly accepts. No such meaning is to be attached to these words.—Instead of being severe they are gentle: instead of

91

pointing to chastisement they point to proprietorship.—The idea is that the flock are passing into the fold, and that the shepherd is causing each of them to be numbered by the rod.—The sheep that pass under the rod in this sense have passed from out of the field into the security of the fold. They have been numbered. They have been safely housed.—The idea is that the flock does not go in as a whole without regard to individuality.—Sheep by sheep enters the sacred enclosure.—We are saved one by one.—We die one by one.—We are to be judged one by one.—Every man shall give an account of himself to God.—Those who have passed under the rod have been acknowledged as the sheep of the Shepherd; no mistake has been made as to the identity of the sheep; no other shepherd can come and claim any sheep that has so passed.—There is but one Shepherd who can identify each member of his flock, and cause each to pass into the fold from which there shall be no more going out.—Do not let us turn sweet words of grace and promise into bitter words of chastisement and penalty.—There is more sweetness in the Bible than we have yet discovered.—Do not let us be afraid to go up to many passages of which we have heretofore stood in terror; instead of being avenging angels they may be loving friends, waiting to deliver to us some new and larger message from heaven.PETT, “Leviticus 27:32“And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Yahweh.”This does not, however, apply to the tithe of the herd or the flock. The Levites would be present to ensure that proper tithes were being paid, and in the case of herd and flock would pass them under a rod, taking aside every tenth one. That was then holy to Yahweh. PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:32, Leviticus 27:33The 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.

33 No one may pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If anyone does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute 92

become holy and cannot be redeemed.’”

GILL, "He shall not search whether it be good or bad,.... In a good or bad state of health, fat or lean, perfect or blemished, but take it as it is, be it what it will: neither shall he change it; neither for the better nor the worse, no alteration was to be made, but the beast was to be taken as it came: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change shall be holy; be sacred to the Lord, and for his use and service; this was done to restrain men from making any alteration, since if they did, both the one and the other were taken from them; yea, were to be beaten with forty stripes, save one (b); whether this change was of the herd with the flock, or of the flock with the herd; or of lambs with goats, or goats with lambs; or of males with females, or of females with males; or of perfect with blemished ones, or of blemished ones with perfect ones: it shall not be redeemed; from whence the Jews (c) gather, that a tithe beast was not to be bought and sold, whether blemished or unblemished. ELLICOTT, “ (33) He shall not search whether it be good or bad.—That is, the owner is not to pick out the good ones from the bad, but, as described above, is to mark every tenth one as it comes out of the fold as belonging to the Lord.And if he change it at all.—See Leviticus 27:10.PETT, “Leviticus 27:33“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.”Once this was done a man could not change any of these animals for another. He cannot check whether the ones set aside for celebratory feasts or for the Levites are better or worse than the others. The choice was irrevocable. If in fact he does seek to change one then both the one being changed, and the one changed for it are both holy to Yahweh, and so he loses out financially. This may for example have been done in order to ensure that at the family feast at the Central Sanctuary the best was available for them to eat.

93

34 These are the commands the Lord gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites.

CLARKE, "These are the commandments - This conclusion is very similar to that at the end of the preceding chapter. I have already supposed that this chapter should have followed the 25th, and that the 26th originally terminated the book. Mr. Ainsworth, the whole of whose writings are animated with the spirit of piety, concludes this book with the following excellent remarks: -

“The tithes in Israel being thus sanctified by the commandment of God to his honor, the maintenance of his ministers, and the relief of the poor, it taught them and teaches us to honor the Lord with our substance, (Pro_3:9), acknowledging him to be the author of all our increase and store; (Deu_8:13-18; Hos_2:8); to honor his Ministers, and to communicate unto them in all good things, (1Ti_5:17, 1Ti_5:18; Gal_6:6), that they who sow unto us spiritual things should reap our carnal things, (1Co_9:11), and to give Alms of such things as we have, that all things may be clear unto us, (Luk_11:41), yea, even to sell that we have, and give alms; to provide ourselves bags that wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not. Luk_12:33.” They who forget their Maker, his ministers, and the poor, are never likely to hear that blessed word in the great day: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you; for I was hungry, and ye gave me meat; thirsty, and ye gave me drink; naked, and ye clothed me; sick and in prison, and ye came unto me.”Reader, thou hast now gone through the whole of this most interesting book; a book whose subject is too little regarded by Christians in general. Here thou mayest discover the rigid requisitions of Divine justice, the sinfulness of sin, the exceeding breadth of the commandment, and the end of all human perfection. And now what thinkest thou of that word, “Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law?” Rom_3:19. But who are under the law - the condemning power of the pure, rigid, moral law of God? Not the Jews only, but every soul of man: all to whom it is sent, and who acknowledge it as a Divine revelation, and have not been redeemed from the guilt of sin by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; for “cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.” By this law then is the knowledge, but not the cure, of sin. Here then what God saith unto thee: “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law), what farther need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law; Heb_7:11, Heb_7:12. Now of the things which we have spoken, this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of

94

the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man; Heb_8:1, Heb_8:2. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins; Heb_10:4. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, - neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that, by means of death, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. And without shedding of blood is no remission. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation;” Heb_9:11, Heb_9:12, Heb_9:15, Heb_9:22, Heb_9:28. We see then that Christ was the End of the law for righteousness (for justification) to every one that believeth. “Unto him, therefore, who hath 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.” Rev_1:5, Rev_1:6.Sections in the Book of Leviticus, carried on from Exodus, which ends with the Twenty-Third.The Twenty-Fourth, called ויקרא valyikra, begins Lev_1:6, and ends Lev_6:7.The Twenty-Fifth, called צו tsav, begins Lev_6:8, and ends Lev_8:36.The Twenty-Sixth, called שמיני shemini, begins Lev_9:1, and ends Lev_11:47.The Twenty-Seventh, called תזריע tazria, begins Lev_12:1, and ends Lev_13:59.The Twenty-Eighth, called מצרע metsora, begins Lev_14:1, and ends Lev_15:33.The Twenty-Ninth, called אחרי מות acharey moth, begins Lev_16:1, and ends Lev_

18:30.The Thirtieth, called קדשים kedoshim, begins Lev_19:1, and ends Lev_20:27.The Thirty-First, called אמר emor, begins Lev_21:1, and ends Lev_24:23.The Thirty-Second, called בהר סיני behar Sinai, begins Lev_25:1, and ends Lev_26:2.The Thirty-Third, called בחקתי bechukkothai, begins Lev_26:3, and ends Lev_27:34.These sections, as was observed on Exodus, have their technical names from some remarkable word, either in the first or second verse of their commencement.

GILL, "These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses,.... Meaning either what are contained in this chapter, or rather in the whole book, which he delivered to Moses: for the children of Israel; to be observed by them, priests and people: and these were given to him in Mount Sinai; either when upon it, or rather when near it, in the wilderness of it, after the tabernacle was set up, and the Lord spake to him out of that; see Lev_1:1.

95

JAMISON, "These are the commandments, etc. — The laws contained in this book, for the most part ceremonial, had an important spiritual bearing, the study of which is highly instructive (Rom_10:4; Heb_4:2; Heb_12:18). They imposed a burdensome yoke (Act_15:10), but yet in the infantine age of the Church formed the necessary discipline of “a schoolmaster to Christ” [Gal_3:24].CALVIN, "Verse 34Leviticus 27:34.These are the commandments. This first passage commends the Law, which was promulgated and written on the two tables, together with the declarations which were annexed to it, to explain more fully the mind of God. For God did not only propound the Decalogue, but also interpreted what He briefly summed up therein. Moreover, Moses endeavors to gain their belief of this doctrine, first, from its authority, because it was delivered by God; and secondly, because he had not assumed the office of lawgiver, but had been appointed by God, and called to undertake it. He demands obedience from the children of Israel, because he had been sent to them as their teacher and master. COFFMAN, “Verse 34"These are the commandments, which Jehovah commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai."This is indeed an appropriate ending for Leviticus, and it has the effect of tying all of the regulations to the Sinaitic covenant. "It is in accord with the total impression given by Leviticus, that it consists of laws given to Moses (by Almighty God) for Israel at Sinai."[17] "This final verse is a repetition of the concluding verse of Leviticus 26, and has the effect of showing that this chapter (Leviticus 27) also is a valid part of the Sinai covenant."[18]We have now come to the end of these somewhat tedious chapters in Leviticus, where there is much material with little application to our own times and situations, "giving inevitably an appearance of dryness and formality";[19] but as Spurgeon once said, "There is honey in the rock if we only take the time and patience to seek it." We praise the Lord who enabled us to discover some of it. How marvelous is the typology, for example, in the consecration of Aaron and his sons, witnessing to some of the most important truth in the Dispensation of Christ, and how merciful of the Lord that in many instances where certain penalties were required, exceptions were made for those who through poverty were unable to comply with the laws! Here, even as in Exodus, it is evident that God's mercy ranked higher than his law, and who is there who cannot rejoice in this glorious O.T. truth?ELLICOTT, “ (34) These are the commandments.—That is, the laws laid down in Leviticus 27:1-34.In Mount Sinai.—In the mountainous district of Sinai. (See Leviticus 26:46.)

96

PETT, “Leviticus 27:34“These are the commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.”This colophon sums up all the commandments which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai. The content - the commandments listed. The author - Moses from Yahweh. The place - in Mount Sinai. It possibly sums up the whole book. It may, however, just refer to this last chapter.PULPIT, “Leviticus 27:34The 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.BI, “These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel.The moral and ceremonial commandments, as compared with the gospel lawMany of these commandments are moral and of perpetual obligation. Others of them ceremonial and peculiar to the Jewish economy, which yet have a spiritual significance, and are instructive to us who are furnished with a key to let us into the mysteries contained in them; for unto us by these institutions is the gospel preached, as well as unto them (Heb_4:2). And upon the whole matter we may see cause to bless God that we are not come to Mount Sinai (Heb_12:18).

1. That we are not under the dark shadows of the law, but enjoy the clear light of the gospel, which shows us Christ the end of the law for righteousness (Rom_10:4). The doctrine of our reconciliation to God by a Mediator is not clouded with the smoke of burning sacrifices, but cleared by the knowledge of Christ, and Him crucified.2. That we are not under the heavy yoke of the law and the carnal ordinances of it, as the apostle calls them (Heb_9:10), imposed till the time of reformation, a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Act_15:10); but under the sweet and easy institutions of the gospel, which pronounces those the true worshippers, that worship the Father in spirit and truth, by Christ only, and in His name, who is our Priest, Temple, Altar, Sacrifice, Purification, and All. Let us not therefore think that because we are not tied to the ceremonial cleansings, feasts, and oblations, a little care, time, and expense will serve to honour God with. No, but rather have our hearts more enlarged in free-will-offerings, to His praise, more inflamed with holy love and joy, and more engaged in seriousness of thoughts, and sincerity of intention. Having boldness to enter into the holiness by the blood of Jesus, let us draw near with a true heart, and in full assurance of faith, worshipping God with so much the more cheerfulness and humble confidence, still saying, Blessed be God for Jesus Christ. (Matthew Henry, D. D.)

97

The covenant in its relation to nations and individualsThe last chapter of the book is taken up with directions for individual worship, on the details of which we cannot enter; but this general thought is suggested, that though the nation as a whole may lose its covenant standing, the way is always open for individuals. There is much comfort in this thought, in view of such dark times as those to which the prophetical part of the preceding chapter points. The door of mercy is never shut, however dark and degenerate the times may be. However wickedness may abound in the world, and coldness and deadness in the Church, God will always have His witnesses, and they will always have their opportunities. This word is never changed, “Whosoever will, let him come.” In all times religion in the last resort must be an individual matter between the soul and God. No man can be saved in a crowd; but neither can any man be lost in a crowd. And sometimes, when the great multitude seems to carry all before it, God still may have His seven thousand men, known to Him alone, who have brought their individual offerings to Him, and “never bowed the knee to Baal.” Remember the comfort that was given to Daniel, when his spirit was ready to faint in the prospect of the dark days which the prophetic vision had disclosed. “Go thou thy way till the end be; for thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” “Go thou thy way”—in times of apostasy and darkness, it is for the individual believer to leave the destinies of the world and of the Church in the hands of Him who “doeth all things well,” and seek only to be faithful to his own duty. As for others: “shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” And as for thee, “thou shalt rest”—there is the fulfilment of the Sabbath and all the sabbatic series—“and stand in thy lot at the end of the days”—there is the fulfilment of the jubilee and all the eighth day series. Amid all the secularities and unbelief and disobedience of the times, let us seek to maintain communion with God, and bring our individual offerings, however “singular” they be, and we shall certainly find that “the joy of the Lord is our strength,” and that His thoughts of love expressed in the feasts of the old covenant will be fulfilled for us, and then at the end of the days we shall enter on our sabbath of rest, and our jubilee of joy eternal. (J. M. Gibson, D. D.)

98