Leviticus · Chapter 27

V. 2. A singular vow-Or, an eminent, or hard vow, not concerning things, which was customary, but concerning persons, which he devoted to the Lord, which was unusual and difficult: yet there want not instances of persons who devoted either themselves or their children, and that either more strictly, as the Nazarites, and the Levites, 1 Samuel 1:11, and for these there was no redemption admitted, but they were in person to perform the service to which they were devoted: or more largely, as some who were not Levites, might yet through zeal to God, or to obtain God’s help, which they wanted or desired, devote themselves or their children to the service of God and of the sanctuary, tho’ not in such a way as the Levites, which was forbidden, yet in some kind of subserviency to them. And because there might be too great a number of persons thus dedicated, which might be burdensome to the sanctuary, an exchange is allowed, and the priests are directed to receive a tax for their redemption. By thy estimation-Thine, O man that vowest, as appears from Leviticus 27:8, where his estimation is opposed to the priest’s valuation. Nor was there any fear of his partiality in his own cause, for the price is particularly limited. But where the price is undetermined, there, to avoid that inconvenience, the priest is to value it, as Leviticus 27:8,12.

Verse 2. 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, Numbers 21:2,3; Psalm 66:12,14. Vows were either of abstinence, such as are spoken of Numbers 30:1, 2, and the vow of the Nazarite, Numbers 6:1-21; or they were to give something to the Lord, as sacrifices, Leviticus 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, (Leviticus 27:5, 6,) his domestics, his cattle, his goods, &c. 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.

Verse 2. Shall make a singular vow — The Hebrew may be rendered, Shall separate, or set apart a vow; that is, shall, by solemn promise; separate any thing from a common to a sacred use. For vows were religious promises made to God, for obtaining some blessing or deliverance from some evil or danger, and were accompanied with prayer, and paid with thanksgiving. The words, however, rdn alpy, japhli neder, may be properly translated, as here, Shall make a singular, or hard, or eminent vow. And this is to be understood, not of things, but of persons, which he devoted to the Lord. Although vows of this kind were not usual, yet there want not instances of persons who devoted either themselves or their children, and that either more strictly, as the Nazarites and the Levites, (1 Samuel 1:11,) and for these no redemption was admitted, but they were in person to perform the service to which they were devoted; or more largely, as some who were not Levites might yet, through zeal for God, or to obtain a blessing which they wanted, devote themselves or their children to the service of God and of the sanctuary, though not in such a way as the Levites, which was forbidden, yet in some kind of subserviency to them. And because there might be too great a number of persons thus dedicated, which might be burdensome to the sanctuary, an exchange is allowed, and the priests are directed to receive a tax for their redemption. A book of rates is, accordingly, provided here, by which the priests were to be guided in their valuation. 1st, The middle-aged, between twenty and sixty, were valued highest, the males at fifty shekels each, and the females at thirty, (verses 3, 4,) women being generally inferior to men in strength and serviceableness. 2d, The rate of the youth between five years old and twenty was less, because they were then less capable of doing service. 3d, Infants under five years old were capable of being vowed to God by their parents, as Samuel was, but were not to be presented and redeemed till they were 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, verse 6. Samuel, who was thus vowed to God, was not redeemed, because he was a Levite, and designed by his parents to be lent to the Lord as long as he lived, 1 Samuel 1:28. Therefore he was employed in his childhood in the service of the tabernacle. 4th, The aged are valued at a less rate than youth, but greater than children, verse 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. 5th, The poor were to be valued according to their ability, verse 8. Something they must pay, that they might not be rash in vowing to God; for he hath no pleasure in fools, Ecclesiastes 2:6; yet not more than their ability, that they might not ruin themselves and their families by their zeal.

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

PERSONS THE OBJECTS OF VOWS, 2-8.

2. A singular vow — That is, special and extraordinary; Hebrews, “if any man definitely announces (R.V., ‘accomplishes’) a vow, souls shall be to Jehovah according to thy estimation.” The same Hebrew verb expresses the separation of a Nazarite unto the Lord. See Numbers 6:2, note. Persons who were the objects of the vow were to be redeemed according to a scale of values 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? ‘Estimation’ supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. The theory that an unredeemed Israelite became a slave of the sanctuary cannot be sustained by 1 Samuel 2:11, 22, 28, since Hannah did not consecrate Samuel by a simple vow, but as a Nazarite for the whole of his life. Still less pertinent to the support of this theory is 2 Samuel 15:8, adduced by Michaelis. The valuation of persons without any thought of the relations of servitude appears further in the redemption of the firstborn.

V. 3. Unto sixty years-Which is the best time for strength and service, and therefore prized at the highest rate.

Verse 3. 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.

3. Thy estimation shall be — The following is the scale of valuation according to age and sex:

A. 1. A male from one month to five years old, 5 shekels $3.03

2. From 5 years to 20 years, 20 shekels $12.12

3. From 20 to 60 years, 50 shekels $30.28

4. Above 60 years, $8.96

B. 1. Females from one month to 5 years old, 3 shekels $1.82

2. From 5 years to 20 years, 10 shekels $6.06

3. From 20 to 60 years, 30 shekels $18.17

4. Above 60 years $6.06

All souls are of equal value in the sight of the impartial Jehovah, but the capacity of personal service is unequal. Hence these unequal valuations of different ages and sexes. An able-bodied man’s earnings being the highest, he is to be redeemed at the highest price. The service of women, as a class, must ever command less wages than men, from the fact that the average skill of women in any handicraft common to both sexes must always be less than that of men, because of the peculiar child-bearing function breaking up the terms of service. Persons above 60 and under 20 are incompetent to render full service, if unredeemed, or to earn full wages for their own redemption. This gives some hint of the price for which the Hebrew servant sold his labour for the term of six years. “The wages of the servant are often the subject of consideration in the Scriptures, but the price of a man never.” — Cheever.

V. 4. Thirty shekels-Less than the man’s price, because she is inferior to him both in strength and serviceableness.

Verse 4. 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.

PERSONS THE OBJECTS OF VOWS, 2-8.

2. A singular vow — That is, special and extraordinary; Hebrews, “if any man definitely announces (R.V., ‘accomplishes’) a vow, souls shall be to Jehovah according to thy estimation.” The same Hebrew verb expresses the separation of a Nazarite unto the Lord. See Numbers 6:2, note. Persons who were the objects of the vow were to be redeemed according to a scale of values 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? ‘Estimation’ supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. The theory that an unredeemed Israelite became a slave of the sanctuary cannot be sustained by 1 Samuel 2:11, 22, 28, since Hannah did not consecrate Samuel by a simple vow, but as a Nazarite for the whole of his life. Still less pertinent to the support of this theory is 2 Samuel 15:8, adduced by Michaelis. The valuation of persons without any thought of the relations of servitude appears further in the redemption of the firstborn.

V. 5. Five years old-At which age they might be vowed by their parents, as appears from 1 Samuel 1:11-28, tho’ not by themselves; and the children were obliged by their parents vow, which is not strange considering the parents right to dispose of their children so far as is not contrary to the mind of God.

Verse 5. 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.

PERSONS THE OBJECTS OF VOWS, 2-8.

2. A singular vow — That is, special and extraordinary; Hebrews, “if any man definitely announces (R.V., ‘accomplishes’) a vow, souls shall be to Jehovah according to thy estimation.” The same Hebrew verb expresses the separation of a Nazarite unto the Lord. See Numbers 6:2, note. Persons who were the objects of the vow were to be redeemed according to a scale of values 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? ‘Estimation’ supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. The theory that an unredeemed Israelite became a slave of the sanctuary cannot be sustained by 1 Samuel 2:11, 22, 28, since Hannah did not consecrate Samuel by a simple vow, but as a Nazarite for the whole of his life. Still less pertinent to the support of this theory is 2 Samuel 15:8, adduced by Michaelis. The valuation of persons without any thought of the relations of servitude appears further in the redemption of the firstborn.

Verse 6. A month old] The male child, five shekels, 15s., the female, three 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 Leviticus 27:26.

PERSONS THE OBJECTS OF VOWS, 2-8.

2. A singular vow — That is, special and extraordinary; Hebrews, “if any man definitely announces (R.V., ‘accomplishes’) a vow, souls shall be to Jehovah according to thy estimation.” The same Hebrew verb expresses the separation of a Nazarite unto the Lord. See Numbers 6:2, note. Persons who were the objects of the vow were to be redeemed according to a scale of values 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? ‘Estimation’ supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. The theory that an unredeemed Israelite became a slave of the sanctuary cannot be sustained by 1 Samuel 2:11, 22, 28, since Hannah did not consecrate Samuel by a simple vow, but as a Nazarite for the whole of his life. Still less pertinent to the support of this theory is 2 Samuel 15:8, adduced by Michaelis. The valuation of persons without any thought of the relations of servitude appears further in the redemption of the firstborn.

Verse 7. Sixty years old] The old man and the old woman, being nearly past labour, 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, Leviticus 27:5, and for the same reason.

PERSONS THE OBJECTS OF VOWS, 2-8.

2. A singular vow — That is, special and extraordinary; Hebrews, “if any man definitely announces (R.V., ‘accomplishes’) a vow, souls shall be to Jehovah according to thy estimation.” The same Hebrew verb expresses the separation of a Nazarite unto the Lord. See Numbers 6:2, note. Persons who were the objects of the vow were to be redeemed according to a scale of values 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? ‘Estimation’ supposes either redemption or purchase. But in the case of men (Israelites) there could be no purchasing as slaves, and therefore the object of the valuing could only have been for the purpose of 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. The theory that an unredeemed Israelite became a slave of the sanctuary cannot be sustained by 1 Samuel 2:11, 22, 28, since Hannah did not consecrate Samuel by a simple vow, but as a Nazarite for the whole of his life. Still less pertinent to the support of this theory is 2 Samuel 15:8, adduced by Michaelis. The valuation of persons without any thought of the relations of servitude appears further in the redemption of the firstborn.

V. 8. Than thy estimation-If he be not able to pay the price which thou, according to the rules here given, requirest of him.

8. If he be poorer than thy estimation — If any man endeavouring to redeem himself from his vow should find the above scale of prices beyond his ability, a special estimate is to be made by the priest adjusted to the ability of the applicant. Thus the lenity of Mosaism appears.

V. 9. Whereof men bring an offering-That is, a clean beast. Giveth-Voweth to give: Shall be holy-Consecrated to God, either to be sacrificed, or to be given to the priest, according to the manner of the vow, and the intention of him that voweth.

Verse 9. If it be a beast — it shall be holy, &c. — A second sort of things vowed to God are beasts. With respect to which the law is, that the very individual beast was to be disposed of by the owner according to the first intention of his vow, whether to be sacrificed upon the altar, or given to the priests, or sold for the use of the sanctuary, the price to be applied to the repairs of the house of God, or to purchase the usual sacrifices. This is what we are to understand by its being holy, as appears from verse 10. The design of this law was to preserve a reverence toward things once consecrated, that they might not return to common uses.

ANIMALS VOWED, 9-13.

9. A beast of the sacrificial kinds, if unblemished, (Leviticus 22:23,) was not redeemable, but was holy unto the Lord. But if it was not fit for the altar, because of some blemish, it became a perquisite of the priests like the firstborn of cattle, verse 33.

V. 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it-Two words expressing the same thing more emphatically, that is, he shall in no wise change it, neither for one of the same, nor of another kind: partly because God would preserve the reverence of consecrated things, and therefore would not have them alienated, and partly to prevent abuses of them who on this pretence might exchange it for the worse. It and the exchange-That is, both the thing first vowed, and the thing offered or given in exchange. This was inflicted upon him as a just penalty for his levity in such weighty matters.

Verse 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, &c.] 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.

Verse 10. He shall not alter it, nor change it — Two words expressing the same thing more emphatically; that is, he shall in no wise change it, neither for one of the same nor of another kind: partly because God would preserve the sanctity and reverence of consecrated things, and therefore would not have them alienated; and partly to prevent abuses of them by those who on this pretence might exchange what had been vowed for the worse. It and the exchange — That is, both the thing first vowed, and the thing offered and given in exchange. This was inflicted upon him as a just penalty for his levity in such weighty matters.

10. He shall not alter — He shall not modify the terms of his vow by substituting any thing else than the animal vowed. Nor change — Another animal of the same species will not be accepted. “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 withdraw, sacrilege.” — Bush. God will permit no dictation respecting the disposal of his own. It and the exchange — As a penalty for his attempted usurpation of a divine prerogative, both animals shall be holy, and tradition adds that the intermeddler was scourged besides. The tendency of this law was to discourage rash vows, and to impress both Jews and Christians with the inviolable sacredness of the object consecrated, no part of which can ever be safely recalled.

V. 11. Unclean-Either for the kind, or for the quality of it; if it were such an one as might not be offered.

Verse 11. Any unclean beast] See Clarke on “Leviticus 27:2”.

Verse 11. Unclean — Either for the kind or for the quality of it; if it were such a one as might not be offered. In the case of any unclean beast; that is, which was not allowed to be offered in sacrifice, such as a horse, camel, &c., it was to be valued by the priest, and then the owner had liberty to leave the beast at the priest’s disposal, or to redeem it by paying the price set upon it, with a fifth part more. This served as a proper check to men’s levity and fickleness in making vows and religious resolutions. It put them in mind not to be rash in opening their mouths to God, and made them feel the inconvenience of repenting of their vows.

11. Any unclean beast — As the horse, ass, or camel; any domestic animal, the dog excepted, (Deuteronomy 23:18,) together with blemished sacrificial animals by Hebrew interpretation, might be vowed and its value as estimated by the priest paid into the priestly treasury.

12. Good or bad — Not blemished or unblemished, not clean or unclean but simply costly or cheap.

Verse 13. 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.

13. He shall add a fifth part — As the author of the vow was free to present the animal or to redeem it, his desire to redeem it would imply that the priest had somewhat undervalued it; so twenty per cent. was added to his estimate.

V. 14. Sanctify his house-By a vow, for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole chapter.

Verse 14. 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.

Verse 14. When a man shall sanctify his house — By a vow; for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole chapter. This is the third case, and was to be regulated by the same law as the last-mentioned. It was to be justly valued by the priest; and if the party chose rather to pay the price than part with the house, he was to submit to the law made in the foregoing case.

HOUSES AND FIELDS VOWED, 14-25.

Since religious considerations may prompt a person in the greatness of his joy for his deliverance or the extremity of his distress to pledge as an offering to God the substantial interests of life, as houses and lands, the statutes must regulate the manner of executing such a vow.

14. Sanctify his house — Sanctification, when predicated of a thing, signifies to consecrate or set apart to a holy use. The devotion of the heart to the Giver of all good finds expression in acts of self-denial and sacrifice, especially in divesting ourselves of worldly goods, to which we so tenaciously cling. The use of property is a touchstone of character. As the priest shall estimate — A delicate duty is here laid upon the priest, requiring in him not only a good judgment and an acquaintance with values, but also the qualities of impartiality and freedom from avarice, since his decision involves his own financial interests. A conscientious priest would naturally incline to an under estimate, since the money paid as the redemption of the object vowed is in reality a free will offering which might have been innocently withheld by abstaining from the vow.

V. 15. The fifth part-Which he might the better do, because the priests did usually put a moderate rate upon it.

HOUSES AND FIELDS VOWED, 14-25.

Since religious considerations may prompt a person in the greatness of his joy for his deliverance or the extremity of his distress to pledge as an offering to God the substantial interests of life, as houses and lands, the statutes must regulate the manner of executing such a vow.

14. Sanctify his house — Sanctification, when predicated of a thing, signifies to consecrate or set apart to a holy use. The devotion of the heart to the Giver of all good finds expression in acts of self-denial and sacrifice, especially in divesting ourselves of worldly goods, to which we so tenaciously cling. The use of property is a touchstone of character. As the priest shall estimate — A delicate duty is here laid upon the priest, requiring in him not only a good judgment and an acquaintance with values, but also the qualities of impartiality and freedom from avarice, since his decision involves his own financial interests. A conscientious priest would naturally incline to an under estimate, since the money paid as the redemption of the object vowed is in reality a free will offering which might have been innocently withheld by abstaining from the vow.

V. 16. Of his possession-That is, which is his by inheritance, because particular direction is given about purchased lands, Leviticus 27:22. And he saith, part of it, for it was unlawful to vow away all his possessions, because thereby he disabled himself from the performance of divers duties, and made himself burdensome to his brethren. According to the seed-That is, according to the quantity and quality of the land, which is known by the quantity of seed which it can receive and return. Fifty-shekels-Not to be paid yearly, ‘till the year of jubilee, but once for all, as is most probable,

1. Because here is no mention of any yearly payment, but only of one payment.

2. Because it is probable that lands were moderately valued, that men might be rather encouraged to make such vows, than deterred by excessive impositions.

But if this were yearly rent, it was an excessive rate, and much more than the land ordinarily yielded. For an omer is but the tenth part of an ephah, about a pottle of our measure, which quantity of seed would not extend very far, and in some lands would yield but an inconsiderable crop, especially in barley, which was cheaper than wheat and which for that reason, among others, may be mentioned rather than wheat.

Verse 16. 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 rmj chomer was different from the rm[ omer: the latter held about three quarts, the former, seventy-five gallons three pints; See Clarke’s note on “Exodus 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.

Verse 16. Shall sanctify some part of his field — This intimates that it was not 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 design of consecrating a part to God, was to procure his blessing upon the rest of their possessions. Thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof — That is, it shall be valued according to the quantity of seed required to sow it. A homer of barley-seed shall be valued at fifty shekels — That is, so much land as a homer of barley would sow was to be rated at fifty shekels, or about five pounds seventeen shillings; and so, proportionably, for greater or less quantities of ground so devoted. There is a great difference between this measure and that which occurs Exodus 16:16; this is written homer, and that ghomer. Now, a ghomer was but the tenth part of an ephah, as we learn from Exodus 16:36; whereas the homer, which is the measure here spoken of, was ten ephahs, Ezekiel 45:11. By this we may explain that threatening in Isaiah 5:10, The seed of a homer shall yield an ephah; that is, ten bushels shall yield but one.

16. Some part of a field — The words “some part,” in the authorized version, are in italics for no good reason, since they exactly express the meaning of the Hebrew partitive preposition min — of. It is generally allowed that it was not lawful for a man, under the high pressure of religious impulse, to alienate his whole patrimony and thus pauperize his own family. According to the seed thereof — Since the quantity of seed usually sown upon an acre is quite uniform, this may be taken in lieu of the rods and roods of square measure. A homer of barley — About five and a half bushels — enough to sow two or three acres. To redeem this amount of land fifty shekels of silver, $30 28, were demanded, and at this rate for any number of homers of seed. The average value of the yearly produce of this field was not estimated, but the value of the crops during the complete ante-jubilee period of forty-nine years. Hence the annual redemption was at the rate of about a shekel and a fifth, or seventy-two cents multiplied by the number of homers vowed.

V. 17. From the year of jubilee-That is, immediately after the year of jubilee is past. According to thy estimation-Now mentioned, of fifty shekels for an omer of barley seed. It shall stand-That is, that price shall be paid without diminution.

Verses 17, 18. If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee — That is, if the vow has been made immediately after the jubilee, then the land requiring a homer of barley-seed is to be valued at fifty shekels, as before mentioned. If after the jubilee — That is, some considerable time after, then the priest was to deduct from the above rate of fifty shekels, either more or less, according as more or fewer years remained till the next jubilee. For no land could be alienated for a longer period than forty-nine years, that is, from one jubilee to another, except in the case after mentioned. If he will not redeem the field — If the owner choose rather to part with his land than redeem it at the price which the priest hath set upon it, and the priest, upon his refusal, have sold it, or rather let it, till the next jubilee, to another man; then he that vowed it shall be excluded from all future privilege of redemption; and, when the jubilee is come, the land shall return to the priesthood for ever. For preventing ambiguity, instead of, If he have sold the field, it ought to be rendered, If the priest have sold, as in the Arabic version; or, If it be sold to another, as in the Vulgate; for the he cannot refer to the owner or vower of the land, as our version makes it, since the vower had no power to sell the land after he had consecrated it, but it was to be sold or let by the priest or treasurer of the sanctuary, who converted the price thereof to a holy use.

17-19. From the year of jubilee — If the vow covered the entire ante-jubilee period, the whole fifty shekels must be paid either in one payment or in annual instalments. But if a portion of the ante-jubilee period has elapsed before the vow is made, the priest shall deduct the years already past and base his estimate on the years that remain. The aggregate sum varies, but the annual redemption premium is invariable for any given quantity of land. This estimate presupposes that the land was inalienable, and that only the usufruct for a limited time could be vowed, since the land reverted to its original owner or his heirs, without compensation, when the trumpet of jubilee sounded. To this general law there are two exceptions, as stated in verse 20. Assured to him — Or, as we would say, deeded back to him.

V. 18. After the jubilee-That is, some considerable time after. The defalcation from the full price of fifty shekels shall be more or less as the years are more or fewer.

Verses 17, 18. If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee — That is, if the vow has been made immediately after the jubilee, then the land requiring a homer of barley-seed is to be valued at fifty shekels, as before mentioned. If after the jubilee — That is, some considerable time after, then the priest was to deduct from the above rate of fifty shekels, either more or less, according as more or fewer years remained till the next jubilee. For no land could be alienated for a longer period than forty-nine years, that is, from one jubilee to another, except in the case after mentioned. If he will not redeem the field — If the owner choose rather to part with his land than redeem it at the price which the priest hath set upon it, and the priest, upon his refusal, have sold it, or rather let it, till the next jubilee, to another man; then he that vowed it shall be excluded from all future privilege of redemption; and, when the jubilee is come, the land shall return to the priesthood for ever. For preventing ambiguity, instead of, If he have sold the field, it ought to be rendered, If the priest have sold, as in the Arabic version; or, If it be sold to another, as in the Vulgate; for the he cannot refer to the owner or vower of the land, as our version makes it, since the vower had no power to sell the land after he had consecrated it, but it was to be sold or let by the priest or treasurer of the sanctuary, who converted the price thereof to a holy use.

17-19. From the year of jubilee — If the vow covered the entire ante-jubilee period, the whole fifty shekels must be paid either in one payment or in annual instalments. But if a portion of the ante-jubilee period has elapsed before the vow is made, the priest shall deduct the years already past and base his estimate on the years that remain. The aggregate sum varies, but the annual redemption premium is invariable for any given quantity of land. This estimate presupposes that the land was inalienable, and that only the usufruct for a limited time could be vowed, since the land reverted to its original owner or his heirs, without compensation, when the trumpet of jubilee sounded. To this general law there are two exceptions, as stated in verse 20. Assured to him — Or, as we would say, deeded back to him.

17-19. From the year of jubilee — If the vow covered the entire ante-jubilee period, the whole fifty shekels must be paid either in one payment or in annual instalments. But if a portion of the ante-jubilee period has elapsed before the vow is made, the priest shall deduct the years already past and base his estimate on the years that remain. The aggregate sum varies, but the annual redemption premium is invariable for any given quantity of land. This estimate presupposes that the land was inalienable, and that only the usufruct for a limited time could be vowed, since the land reverted to its original owner or his heirs, without compensation, when the trumpet of jubilee sounded. To this general law there are two exceptions, as stated in verse 20. Assured to him — Or, as we would say, deeded back to him.

V. 20. If he will not redeem it-When the priest shall set a price upon it, and offer it to him in the first place to redeem it: or, rather and, for this seems to be added by way of accumulation, if he, that is, the priest, of whom he might have redeemed it, upon his refusal, offers it to sale, and have sold the field to another man-He shall for ever lose the benefit of redemption.

20. If he will not redeem — Since the priests were employed in the sanctuary and could not secularize themselves by cultivating patches of land scattered through the country, the land vowed lay idle or was still cultivated by its proprietor. As a penalty for his neglect to pay the redemption year by year, the land was forfeited to the sanctuary in the jubilee. “Hence it is to be inferred that a consecrated field must have been redeemed before the jubilee unless any one manifestly wished it to be alienated.” — Clericus. If he have sold — Knobel thinks that only culpable caprice or dishonesty could have induced the proprietor to sell a field after he had vowed it to the Lord. The fact that it became irredeemable after such an act seems to favour this theory. The fault, for which the forfeiture of the field is a penalty, may have consisted in the fact that he still assumed undisputed ownership of a field which he had solemnly consecrated to the Lord, to whose rights he had done violence by the sale.

V. 21. When it goeth out-That is, out of the possession of the other man to whom the priest sold it. The possession shall be the priests-For their maintenance. Nor is this repugnant to that law, that the priests should have no inheritance in the land, Numbers 18:20, for that is only spoken of, the tribe of Levi in general, in reference to the first division of the land, wherein the Levites were not to have a distinct part of land, as other tribes had; but this doth not hinder, but some particular lands might be vowed and given to the priests, either for their own benefit, or for the service of the sanctuary.

Verse 21. As a field devoted] It is חרם cherem, a thing so devoted to God as never more to be capable of being redeemed. See Clarke on “Leviticus 27:29”.

Verse 21. When it goeth out — That is, out of the possession of the other man to whom the priest sold it. The possession shall be the priest’s — For his maintenance. Nor is this repugnant to that law, that the priests should have no inheritance in the land, Numbers 18:20; for that is only spoken of the tribe of Levi in general, in reference to the first division of the land, wherein the Levites were not to have a distinct part of land, as other tribes had; but this does not imply that some particular lands might not be vowed and given to the priests, either for their own benefit, or for the service of the sanctuary.

HOUSES AND FIELDS VOWED, 14-25.

Since religious considerations may prompt a person in the greatness of his joy for his deliverance or the extremity of his distress to pledge as an offering to God the substantial interests of life, as houses and lands, the statutes must regulate the manner of executing such a vow.

14. Sanctify his house — Sanctification, when predicated of a thing, signifies to consecrate or set apart to a holy use. The devotion of the heart to the Giver of all good finds expression in acts of self-denial and sacrifice, especially in divesting ourselves of worldly goods, to which we so tenaciously cling. The use of property is a touchstone of character. As the priest shall estimate — A delicate duty is here laid upon the priest, requiring in him not only a good judgment and an acquaintance with values, but also the qualities of impartiality and freedom from avarice, since his decision involves his own financial interests. A conscientious priest would naturally incline to an under estimate, since the money paid as the redemption of the object vowed is in reality a free will offering which might have been innocently withheld by abstaining from the vow.

V. 22. His possession-His patrimony or inheritance.

Verses 22, 23. Not of the fields of his possession — His patrimony or inheritance. Thy estimation — That is, the price which thou, O Moses, by my direction, hast set in such cases. To the jubilee — As much as it is worth, for that space of time between the making of the vow and the year of jubilee: for he had no right to it for any longer time, as the next verse tells us. As a holy thing — As that which is to be consecrated to God instead of the land redeemed by it.

22-24. Sanctify… a field… bought — In the case of the vow of a field not inherited but purchased, the amount of the valuation was to be paid all at once in that day, that is, the day of the estimation. From this we infer that the amount of the vow of an hereditary field was paid annually if the proprietor so elected. In the jubilee the purchased field which had been vowed did not revert to the buyer, but to the hereditary owner. The reason for this law is, to prevent a patrimonial inheritance from being finally estranged from any family or tribe in Israel. See Leviticus 25:23-28, notes.

V. 23. Thy estimation-That is, the price which thou, O Moses, by my direction hast set in such cases. To the jubilee-As much as it is worth, for that space of time between the making of the vow and the year of jubilee: for he had no right to it for any longer time, as the next verse tells us. As an holy thing-As that which is to be consecrated to God instead of the land redeemed by it.

Verses 22, 23. Not of the fields of his possession — His patrimony or inheritance. Thy estimation — That is, the price which thou, O Moses, by my direction, hast set in such cases. To the jubilee — As much as it is worth, for that space of time between the making of the vow and the year of jubilee: for he had no right to it for any longer time, as the next verse tells us. As a holy thing — As that which is to be consecrated to God instead of the land redeemed by it.

22-24. Sanctify… a field… bought — In the case of the vow of a field not inherited but purchased, the amount of the valuation was to be paid all at once in that day, that is, the day of the estimation. From this we infer that the amount of the vow of an hereditary field was paid annually if the proprietor so elected. In the jubilee the purchased field which had been vowed did not revert to the buyer, but to the hereditary owner. The reason for this law is, to prevent a patrimonial inheritance from being finally estranged from any family or tribe in Israel. See Leviticus 25:23-28, notes.

22-24. Sanctify… a field… bought — In the case of the vow of a field not inherited but purchased, the amount of the valuation was to be paid all at once in that day, that is, the day of the estimation. From this we infer that the amount of the vow of an hereditary field was paid annually if the proprietor so elected. In the jubilee the purchased field which had been vowed did not revert to the buyer, but to the hereditary owner. The reason for this law is, to prevent a patrimonial inheritance from being finally estranged from any family or tribe in Israel. See Leviticus 25:23-28, notes.

V. 25. The shekel-About 2s. 6d.

Verse 25. 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 Genesis 20:16; 23:15.

Verse 25. The shekel of the sanctuary — About 2s. 6d.

25. Shekel of the sanctuary — This implies that a standard of weights was kept in the sanctuary to try and regulate all the weights in the land. Thus true religion provides things honest. For the value of the shekel see Numbers 3:47, note.

V. 26. No man shall sanctify it-By vow; because it is not his own, but the Lord’s already, and therefore to vow such a thing to God is a tacit derogation from, and an usurpation of the Lord’s right, and a mocking of God by pretending to give what we cannot withhold from him. Or ox or sheep-Under these two eminent kinds he comprehends all other beasts which might be sacrificed to God, the firstlings whereof could not be redeemed but were to be sacrificed; whereas the firstlings of men were to be redeemed, and therefore were capable of being vowed, as we see, 1 Samuel 1:11.

Verse 26. No man shall sanctify it — By vow; because it is not his own, but the Lord’s already, and therefore to vow such a thing to God is a tacit derogation from, and a usurpation of, the Lord’s right, and a mocking of God by pretending to give what we cannot withhold from him. Ox or sheep — Under these two eminent kinds he comprehends all other beasts which might be sacrificed to God, the firstlings whereof could not be redeemed, but were to be sacrificed; whereas the firstlings of men were to be redeemed, and therefore were capable of being vowed, as we see, 1 Samuel 1:11.

FIRSTLINGS AND UNCLEAN BEASTS, 26, 27.

26, 27. The Lord’s firstling — This being already the Lord’s, since the first passover in Egypt could not be the object of a vow. Exodus 13:1,

2. This exemption from the vow did not include the firstlings of an unclean beast which, as it was not included in the law of the firstlings, might be specially devoted to Jehovah. Verse 11, note. Since it could not be used in sacrifice, it must be sold at the priest’s valuation or redeemed by adding a fifth. The valuation increased by a fifth would deter from rash vows and covetous redemptions.

V. 27. An unclean beast-That is, if it be the first-born of an unclean beast, as appears from Leviticus 27:26, which could not be vowed, because it was a first-born, nor offered, because it was unclean, and therefore is here commanded to be redeemed or sold. It shall be sold-And the price thereof was given to the priests, or brought into the Lord’s treasury.

Verse 27. An unclean beast — That is, if it be the firstborn of an unclean beast, as appears from verse 26, which could not be vowed, because it was a firstborn, nor offered, because it was unclean; and therefore is here commanded to be redeemed or sold. It shall be sold — And the price thereof was given to the priests, or brought into the Lord’s treasury.

FIRSTLINGS AND UNCLEAN BEASTS, 26, 27.

26, 27. The Lord’s firstling — This being already the Lord’s, since the first passover in Egypt could not be the object of a vow. Exodus 13:1,

2. This exemption from the vow did not include the firstlings of an unclean beast which, as it was not included in the law of the firstlings, might be specially devoted to Jehovah. Verse 11, note. Since it could not be used in sacrifice, it must be sold at the priest’s valuation or redeemed by adding a fifth. The valuation increased by a fifth would deter from rash vows and covetous redemptions.

V. 28. No devoted thing-That is, nothing which is absolutely devoted to God with a curse upon themselves or others, if they disposed not of it according to their vow; as the Hebrew word implies. Most holy-That is, only to be touched or employed by the priests, and by no other persons; no not by their own families, for that was the state of the most holy things.

Verse 28. No devoted thing-shall be sold or redeemed] This is the חרם cherem, which always meant an absolute unredeemable grant to God.

Verse 28. No devoted thing — That is, nothing which is absolutely devoted to God with a curse upon themselves or others if they disposed not of it according to their vow; as the Hebrew word implies. Most holy — That is, only to be touched or employed by the priests, and by no other persons; no, not by their own families, for that was the state of the most holy things.

Ver. 28. No devoted thing. µrj cherem, which the LXX render anathema. These strong words place the consciences of men in a most serious situation, who violate their vows, and rob God and the church of devoted things. They steal the offering, and God adds the leprosy as a punishment.

THINGS UNDER THE BAN AND TITHES, 28-34.

28. No devoted thing — Nothing put under the ban to the Lord, either of property or persons, was to be redeemed or sold, because it was most holy. Leviticus 2:3, note. The Hebrew word for “devoted” is cherem, a much stronger term than it is translated by in our version. It differs from the neder, or ordinary vow, in the imprecations and execrations invoked for its non-fulfilment. There may have been other differences which are not in the Mosaic record. That this form of a vow was solemn in the highest degree, and absolutely irrevocable, and, in this respect, an exception to the vows in the preceding verses, is evident from the Hebrew particle at the beginning of the verse, ak, nevertheless. Of man and beast — “The man thus devoted was to be put to death,” says Keil. But Saalschutz discusses the question whether private persons could devote human beings to death, and rightly decides in the negative. In later times menservants and maidservants belonged to the sanctuary. Numbers 31:47; Joshua 9:3; 26, 27; 1 Samuel 2:22, note. On the whole, Mosaism does not favour votive dedications, hence we find no very exact specifications respecting them. The cherem, or ban, denotes that which is removed from the use or abuse of men and irrecoverably devoted to God, human beings being killed, while sacrificial animals and the precious metals were either given up to the sanctuary forever or destroyed for the glory of Jehovah. See Joshua 6:17, 21, notes. This was the punishment denounced against incorrigible idolatry. Deuteronomy 13:13-18. “It follows from this, however, that the vow of banning could only be made in connexion 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 a man, even though he were a slave. Exodus 21:20. The owner of cattle and fields was allowed to put them under the ban only 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. Most holy — The devoted thing could be eaten by the priests only, or, if inedible, it could be employed only for the service of Jehovah. It was sacrilege for the giver to put forth his hand to retake it. He might have made the cherem very grudgingly and half-heartedly, but, having made it, the object was forever removed from his control. It was not the intention of the giver that made it holy, but the holiness of the Receiver. An offering once laid upon the altar from that moment belonged to the Lord. This law throws floods of light upon the subject of Christian consecration and sanctification. Having solemnly surrendered our entire being to Christ, we are henceforth to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God as most holy sacrifices, which it would be sacrilege to take from the altar.

V. 29. Devoted of men-Not by men, as some would elude It; but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men are here not the persons devoting, but devoted to destruction, either by God’s sentence, as idolaters, Exodus 22:20 Deu 23:15, the Canaanites, Deuteronomy 20:17, the Amalekites, Deuteronomy 25:19, and 1 Samuel 15:3,26, Benhaded, 1 Kings 20:42, or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as Numbers 21:2,3 31:17, or for any crime of an high nature, as Judges 21:5 Jos 17:15. But this is not to be generally understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might by virtue of this Text, devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath, or which is his, that is, which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said, Exodus 21:20, it could not be lawful wilfully to take away his life upon pretence of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c. God the undoubted Lord of all men’s lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them or such as them.

Verse 29. 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 Chananæos, 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 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, Joshua 6:17, and the Amalekites, Deuteronomy 25:19; 1 Samuel 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 rdn neder, (see Clarke on “Leviticus 27:2”,) 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.

Verse 29. Devoted of men — Not by men, as some would elude it, but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men are here not the persons devoting, but devoted to destruction, either by God’s sentence, as idolaters, Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 23. 15; the Canaanites, Deuteronomy 20:17; the Amalekites, 25:19; 1 Samuel 15:3, 26; Benhadad, 1 Kings 20:42; or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as Numbers 21:2, 3; 31:17; or for any crime of a high nature, as Judges 21:5. But this is certainly not to be understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might, by virtue of this text, devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath or which is his; that is, which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said, Exodus 21:20, it could not be lawful wilfully to take away his life upon pretence of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c., God, the undoubted Lord of all men’s lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them, or such as them.

29. Shall surely be put to death — Doubtless meaning that the person so devoted should remain till death in the condition in which his devotement placed him.

V. 30. The tithe-There are divers sorts of tithes, but this seems to be understood only of the ordinary and yearly tithes belonging to the Levites, as the very expression intimates, and the addition of the fifth part in case of redemption thereof implies.

Verse 30. 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 “Genesis 28:22”, to which I do not see the necessity of adding any thing.

Verse 30. The tithe — There were divers sorts of tithes, but this seems to be understood only of the ordinary and yearly tithes belonging to the Levites, as the very expression intimates, and the addition of the fifth part in case of the redemption thereof implies.

30. All the tithe — This already was the Lord’s, and could not be the object of an acceptable vow. Yet if for any reason it was desirable to redeem it, it could be done by adding a fifth. In reckoning the tithes, the firstfruits were first set aside. Leviticus 2:12, note. Out of the rest the tithes were taken for the Levites. Numbers 18:21. Another tenth was to be eaten by the owner in Jerusalem. Deuteronomy 12:6, 7. Every third year it was distributed to the poor. Of the land — This law gave the sanction of divine authority to an ancient usage. The whole produce of the land was subjected to the tithe tribute — it was a kind of yearly rent which the Israelites, as tenants, paid to God as owner of the land.

THINGS UNDER THE BAN AND TITHES, 28-34.

28. No devoted thing — Nothing put under the ban to the Lord, either of property or persons, was to be redeemed or sold, because it was most holy. Leviticus 2:3, note. The Hebrew word for “devoted” is cherem, a much stronger term than it is translated by in our version. It differs from the neder, or ordinary vow, in the imprecations and execrations invoked for its non-fulfilment. There may have been other differences which are not in the Mosaic record. That this form of a vow was solemn in the highest degree, and absolutely irrevocable, and, in this respect, an exception to the vows in the preceding verses, is evident from the Hebrew particle at the beginning of the verse, ak, nevertheless. Of man and beast — “The man thus devoted was to be put to death,” says Keil. But Saalschutz discusses the question whether private persons could devote human beings to death, and rightly decides in the negative. In later times menservants and maidservants belonged to the sanctuary. Numbers 31:47; Joshua 9:3; 26, 27; 1 Samuel 2:22, note. On the whole, Mosaism does not favour votive dedications, hence we find no very exact specifications respecting them. The cherem, or ban, denotes that which is removed from the use or abuse of men and irrecoverably devoted to God, human beings being killed, while sacrificial animals and the precious metals were either given up to the sanctuary forever or destroyed for the glory of Jehovah. See Joshua 6:17, 21, notes. This was the punishment denounced against incorrigible idolatry. Deuteronomy 13:13-18. “It follows from this, however, that the vow of banning could only be made in connexion 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 a man, even though he were a slave. Exodus 21:20. The owner of cattle and fields was allowed to put them under the ban only 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.” — Keil and Delitzsch. Most holy — The devoted thing could be eaten by the priests only, or, if inedible, it could be employed only for the service of Jehovah. It was sacrilege for the giver to put forth his hand to retake it. He might have made the cherem very grudgingly and half-heartedly, but, having made it, the object was forever removed from his control. It was not the intention of the giver that made it holy, but the holiness of the Receiver. An offering once laid upon the altar from that moment belonged to the Lord. This law throws floods of light upon the subject of Christian consecration and sanctification. Having solemnly surrendered our entire being to Christ, we are henceforth to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God as most holy sacrifices, which it would be sacrilege to take from the altar.

V. 32. Under the rod-Either,

1. The tither’s rod, it being the manner of the Jews in tithing to cause all their cattle to pass through some gate or narrow passage, where the tenth was marked by a person appointed for that purpose and reserved for the priest. Or

2. the shepherd’s rod, under which the herds and flocks passed, and by which they were governed and numbered. See Jeremiah 33:13 Eze 20:37.

Verse 32. 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, &c., and when the tenth came, he touched it with the coloured rod, by which it was distinguished to be the tithe calf, sheep, &c., 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.

Verse 32. Under the rod — Either, 1st, The tithers’ rod, it being the manner of the Jews in tithing to cause all their cattle to pass through some gate or narrow passage, where the tenth was marked by a person appointed for that purpose, and reserved for the priest. Or, 2d, The shepherd’s rod, under which the herds and flocks passed, and by which they were governed and numbered. See Jeremiah 33:13; Ezekiel 20:37.

32, 33. Whatsoever passeth under the rod — As explained by the rabbins, this relates to the custom of driving the yearly increase of the flock one by one past the shepherd, who counted them with a rod stretched out over them, and marked every tenth one with vermillion or red ochre on the end of his rod, without examination whether it be good or bad. By this means the covetous were restrained from defrauding the Levites by selecting the poorest of the flock. See Jeremiah 33:13; Ezekiel 20:37. The tithe is here assumed as something well known, having like the pre-Sinaitic offerings been practiced from time immemorial. Genesis 14:20; 28:22. Hence it was not necessary to give a formal command to offer tithes to Jehovah. It is a perversion of Scripture to quote “passing under the rod” as indicating divine punishment. The sheep that pass under the rod have passed from the field into the security of the fold. They have been numbered and safely housed. The flock does not go in as a whole without regard to individuality. The Great Shepherd individualizes his flock. “He calleth his own sheep by name.”

32, 33. Whatsoever passeth under the rod — As explained by the rabbins, this relates to the custom of driving the yearly increase of the flock one by one past the shepherd, who counted them with a rod stretched out over them, and marked every tenth one with vermillion or red ochre on the end of his rod, without examination whether it be good or bad. By this means the covetous were restrained from defrauding the Levites by selecting the poorest of the flock. See Jeremiah 33:13; Ezekiel 20:37. The tithe is here assumed as something well known, having like the pre-Sinaitic offerings been practiced from time immemorial. Genesis 14:20; 28:22. Hence it was not necessary to give a formal command to offer tithes to Jehovah. It is a perversion of Scripture to quote “passing under the rod” as indicating divine punishment. The sheep that pass under the rod have passed from the field into the security of the fold. They have been numbered and safely housed. The flock does not go in as a whole without regard to individuality. The Great Shepherd individualizes his flock. “He calleth his own sheep by name.”

V. 34. These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai-This has reference to the whole book. Many of these commandments are moral: others ceremonial and peculiar to the Jewish economy: Which yet are instructive to us, who have a key to the mysteries that are contained in them. Upon the whole, we have cause to bless God, that we are not come to mount Sinai, that we are not under the dark shadows of the law, but enjoy the clear light of the gospel. 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. And we may praise him, that we are not under the yoke of the law, but under the sweet and easy instructions of the gospel, which pronounces those the true worshippers, that worship the Father in spirit and in truth, by Christ only, who is our priest, temple, altar, sacrifice, purification and all.

Verse 34. 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 honour, the maintenance of his ministers, and the relief of the poor, it taught them and teaches us to honour the Lord with our substance, (Proverbs 3:9,) acknowledging him to be the author of all our increase and store; (Deuteronomy 8:13-18; Hosea 2:8;) to honour his MINISTERS, and to communicate unto them in all good things, (1 Timothy 5:17,18; Galatians 6:6,) that they who sow unto us spiritual things should reap our carnal things, ( 1 Corinthians 9:11,) and to give ALMS of such things as we have, that all things may be clear unto us, (Luke 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. Luke 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?” Romans 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; Hebrews 7:11,12. 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 the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man; Hebrews 8:1,2. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins; Hebrews 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;” Hebrews 9:11, 12, 15, 22, 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.” Revelation 1:5,6.

SECTIONS in the Book of Leviticus , carried on from Exodus, which ends with the TWENTY-THIRD.

The TWENTY-FOURTH, called arqyw valyikra, begins Leviticus 1:6, and ends Leviticus 6:7.

The TWENTY-FIFTH, called wx tsav, begins Leviticus 6:8, and ends Leviticus 8:36.

The TWENTY-SIXTH, called ynymv shemini, begins Leviticus 9:1, and ends Leviticus 11:47.

The TWENTY-SEVENTH, called [yrzt tazria, begins Leviticus 12:1, and ends Leviticus 13:59.

The TWENTY-EIGHTH, called [rxm metsora, begins Leviticus 14:1, and ends Leviticus 15:33.

The TWENTY-NINTH, called twm yrja acharey moth, begins Leviticus 16:1, and ends Leviticus 18:30.

The THIRTIETH, called µyvdq kedoshim, begins Leviticus 19:1, and ends Leviticus 20:27.

The THIRTY-FIRST, called rma emor, begins Leviticus 21:1, and ends Leviticus 24:23.

The THIRTY-SECOND, called ynys rhb behar Sinai, begins Leviticus 25:1, and ends Leviticus 26:2.

The THIRTY-THIRD, called ytqjb bechukkothai, begins Leviticus 26:3, and ends Leviticus 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.

MASORETIC Notes on LEVITICUS

The number of verses in vaiyikra, i.e., Leviticus , is 859. The symbol of which is ã’’cn. ã pe final stands for 800, n nun for 50, and c teth for 9. The middle verse is Leviticus 15:11: And he that toucheth the flesh, &c.

Its pareshioth, or larger sections, are 10, the memorial symbol of which is taken from Genesis 30:11: dg ab ba gad, a troop cometh: in which b beth stands for 2, a aleph for 1, g gimel for 3, and d daleth for 4. Its sedarim, or Masoretic sections, are 23. The symbol of which is taken from Psalm 1:2, hghy yehgeh: In thy law shall he MEDITATE day and night.

Its perakim, or modern chapters, are 27. The memorial sign which is hyhaw veeyeheh, Genesis 26:3: AND I WILL BE with thee, and will bless thee.

The number of its open divisions is 52; of its close divisions, 46: total 98. The memorial sign of which is jx tsach, {Cant.} Song of Solomon 5:10; My beloved is WHITE and ruddy. In this word x tsaddi stands for 90, and j cheth for 8.

VERSES 859. WORDS 11,902. LETTERS computed to be 44,989.

See the concluding note on GENESIS.

Finished the correction of Exodus and Leviticus , April 2, 1827.-A. CLARKE.

Verse 34. These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai — This has reference to the whole book. Many of these commandments are moral; others ceremonial, and peculiar to the Jewish economy; which yet are instructive to us, who have a key to the mysteries that are contained in them. Upon the whole, we have cause to bless God that we are not come to mount Sinai, that we are not under the dark shadows of the law, but enjoy the clear light of the gospel. 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. And we may praise him that we are not under the yoke of the law, but under the sweet and easy instructions of the gospel, which pronounces those the true worshippers that worship the Father in spirit and in truth, by Christ only, who is our priest, temple, altar, sacrifice, purification, and all.

34. The Lord commanded Moses — Not some unknown forger in the days of the kings or after the Babylonian exile. Nevertheless we have no objection to the position of Dr. George P. Fisher, “That there was a growth in Hebrew laws; that the codes were kept open, the original rubrics being retained; that legislation was added from time to time, under the guidance of the prophets, to suit changing circumstances, new ordinances being looked on as Mosaic, for the reason that they were conceived in the spirit, and were considered a legitimate development of, the primitive enactments.” In Mount Sinai — Leviticus 26:46, note. Thus this supplementary chapter is attached to the body of the Levitical law delivered, at least in outline, at the foot of Sinai. It is fitting that its divine authorship, through the agency of Moses, should be attested in these concluding words.

CONCLUDING NOTE.

Whenever in human history priests have legislated respecting the financial obligations of the people they have invariably constructed their code in such a way as to drain the wealth of the country into the pockets of the sacerdotal class. The enormous wealth piled up in every age by the Roman Catholic hierarchy is an indisputable fact of history. An incredible amount of the wealth of England was in the coffers of the clergy in the time of Henry Fourth. This was true of Mexico till 1861, when the oppressed people threw off the priestly yoke and confiscated the vast wealth of the Church to the uses of the Republic. Since nothing like this ever occurred in Jewish history, because of the safeguards which the law set about the property, especially the lands of the people, we infer that the legislation on this subject did not originate with the priests of a later age, but with Moses himself. This is consistent with the theory of Dr. Fisher, that the codes were left open to amendment in minor details in harmony with the spirit of Mosaism.

CONCLUSION.

The Israelites were chosen out of the midst of an idolatrous world to receive monotheism when all the nations of the earth had lapsed into polytheism. They were elected to conserve not only the doctrine of one God, but the doctrine of his spirituality and holiness, and to maintain a religion of the highest purity inseparably linked with a perfect morality. For this purpose, in the first stages of their religious development they received not a revelation of the moral attributes of God in the abstract, but in the concrete, enshrined in symbols and ceremonies, whereby the knowledge of God might be safely kept till the time of its manifestation in a purer and more heavenly form in the dispensation of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The peculiarity of the Hebrews did not consist in intellectual culture after the style of the Greeks, nor in the administration of civil law like the Romans, but their distinguishing characteristic was religion. Hence their frequent festivals, their constant sacrifices, their scrupulous purifications were impressive object-lessons, teaching the Divine unity and holiness. Their wars, their heroes, and their poetry had a sacred flavour, and their national code was full of the details of public worship. Every thing in their social and family life was connected with their religion, which had not been evolved out of the Hebrew consciousness but was revealed from heaven. Their ordinary employments were suggestive of the truths thus revealed, because they were at every point touched by divinely appointed and significant ceremonies. Nor was this religious cult, like those of the Gentile world, a mysterious creed in the sole possession of a sacerdotal class, but it was the common heritage of the learned and the ignorant. It was neither a recondite philosophy which might not be communicated to the masses, nor a weak superstition sneered at by the higher classes while controlling the lower. The religion of Moses, utterly destitute of any aristocratic element, was for the use and benefit of all — the poorest peasant and the wisest rabbin.

The one object of worship focalized the thoughts of the entire nation upon Jehovah. Their feelings were not dissipated and distracted by a fantastic mythology, where a multitude of gods with contradictory attributes claim the attention of the devout mind. There was in Mosaism no impassable gulf between morality and religion, which among other nations is the bottomless abyss of all impurity. The will and approval of Jehovah were the motive to virtue, and incentive and support of holiness wherever there was a faith in his word which raised men above their natural weakness, and gave the saints of the Old Testament, as well as of the New, victory over the world. Hence the Hebrew race occupies an entirely unique place in the history of religion. Inferior to their near neighbours, the Phoenicians, in commerce and worldly refinement, excelled by the Greeks in art and philosophy, and by the Romans and other nations in bravery, the sons of Abraham tower above them all in religious ideas, institutions, expectations, and, above all, in a self-consciousness which can only be the fruit of boundless arrogance or of exalted privilege, betokening a supernatural call to religious leadership. Notwithstanding all that Moses has in common with all other ancient founders of religion, his personality, his institutions, and his character would remain absolutely inexplicable, unless he had been the bearer of a special DIVINE REVELATION. The Book of Leviticus, whose sole aim is the inculcation of holiness, could not have been evolved from hearts prone to sin. Like begets like.