| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Leviticus
Chapter Twenty-seven
Leviticus 27
Chapter Contents
The law concerning vows, Of persons and animals. (1-13)
Vows concerning houses and land. (14-25) Devoted things not to be redeemed.
(26-33) Conclusion. (34)
Commentary on Leviticus 27:1-13
Zeal for the service of God disposed the Israelites, on
some occasions, to dedicate themselves or their children to the service of the
Lord, in his house for life. Some persons who thus dedicated themselves might
be employed as assistants; in general they were to be redeemed for a value. It
is good to be zealously affected and liberally disposed for the Lord's service;
but the matter should be well weighed, and prudence should direct as to what we
do; else rash vows and hesitation in doing them will dishonour God, and trouble
our own minds.
Commentary on Leviticus 27:14-25
Our houses, lands, cattle, and all our substance, must be
used to the glory of God. It is acceptable to him that a portion be given to
support his worship, and to promote his cause. But God would not approve such a
degree of zeal as ruined a man's family.
Commentary on Leviticus 27:26-33
Things or persons devoted, are distinguished from things
or persons that were only sanctified. Devoted things were most holy to the
Lord, and could neither be taken back nor applied to other purposes. Whatever
productions they had the benefit, God must be honoured with the tenth of, if it
could be applied. Thus they acknowledge God to be the Owner of their land, the
Giver of its fruits, and themselves to be his tenants, and dependants upon him.
Thus they gave him thanks for the plenty they enjoyed, and besought his favour
in the continuance of it. We are taught to honour the Lord with our substance.
Commentary on Leviticus 27:34
The last verse seems to have reference to this whole
book. Many of the precepts in it are moral, and always binding; others are
ceremonial, and peculiar to the Jewish nation; yet they have a spiritual
meaning, and so teach us; for unto us, by these institutions, is the gospel
preached, as well as unto them, Hebrews 4:2. The doctrine of reconciliation to
God by a Mediator, is not clouded with the smoke of burning sacrifice, but
cleared by the knowledge of Christ and him crucified. We are under the sweet
and easy institutions of the gospel, which pronounces those true worshippers,
who worship the Father in spirit and truth, by Christ only, and in his name.
Yet, let us not think, because we are not tied to the ceremonial rites and
oblations, that a little care, time, and expense, will serve to honour God
with. Having boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, let us
draw near with a true heart, and in full assurance of faith, worshipping God
with the more cheerfulness and humble confidence, still saying, BLESSED BE GOD
FOR JESUS CHRIST.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on Leviticus》
Leviticus 27
Verse 2
[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.
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 3
[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.
Unto sixty years —
Which is the best time for strength and service, and therefore prized at the
highest rate.
Verse 4
[4] And
if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
Thirty shekels —
Less than the man's price, because she is inferior to him both in strength and
serviceableness.
Verse 5
[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.
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 8
[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.
Than thy estimation — If
he be not able to pay the price which thou, according to the rules here given,
requirest of him.
Verse 9
[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.
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 10
[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.
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 11
[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:
Unclean —
Either for the kind, or for the quality of it; if it were such an one as might
not be offered.
Verse 14
[14] And
when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD, then the priest
shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it,
so shall it stand.
Sanctify his house — By
a vow, for of that way and manner of sanctification he speaks in this whole
chapter.
Verse 15
[15] 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.
The fifth part —
Which he might the better do, because the priests did usually put a moderate
rate upon it.
Verse 16
[16] And
if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD some part of a field of his possession,
then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley
seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.
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 17
[17] If
he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy estimation it
shall stand.
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.
Verse 18
[18] But
if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto
him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the
jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation.
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.
Verse 20
[20] And
if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man,
it shall not be redeemed any more.
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.
Verse 21
[21] But
the field, when it goeth out in the jubile, shall be holy unto the LORD, as a
field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest's.
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 22
[22] And
if a man sanctify unto the LORD a field which he hath bought, which is not of
the fields of his possession;
His possession —
His patrimony or inheritance.
Verse 23
[23] Then
the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the
year of the jubile: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy
thing unto the LORD.
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.
Verse 25
[25] And
all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty
gerahs shall be the shekel.
The shekel —
About 2s. 6d.
Verse 26
[26] Only
the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD's firstling, no man shall
sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD's.
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 27
[27] And if
it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine
estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed,
then it shall be sold according to thy estimation.
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 28
[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.
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 29
[29] None
devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be
put to death.
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, 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, or for any crime of an high nature, as Judges 21:5; Joshua 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, etc. 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 30
[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.
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 32
[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.
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.
Verse 34
[34]
These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of
Israel in mount Sinai.
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.
── John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on
Leviticus》
27 Chapter 27
Verses 2-13
When a man shall make a singular vow.
Laws concerning vows
I. That voluntary
and special vows were permitted by the Lord. Vows should be made cautiously,
deliberately, and, in most instances, conditionally; because further
enlightenment, or changed conditions may render their fulfilment undesirable,
unnecessary, or even impossible.
II. That vows were
acceptable to the Lord according to the spirit which prompted them, and in
which they were paid. When circumstances justified an Israelite repenting of
his vow, it could be com-mutated or remitted, or some compensation offered in
its stead. Jehovah would accept nothing that was recklessly or reluctantly
presented. All adjustments and decisions were to be made according to the
standards of the sanctuary, not according to human fallibility and caprice.
Though a vow should not be literally performed, it must be perfectly fulfilled
in respect to honourable intention and sacred fidelity. The state of heart, in
the presentation of sacrifice, determined the value of the gift. This law has
fever been repealed.
III. That freedom of
choice given in the fulfilment of vows did not contravene the purposes of the
lord concerning his work and worship. The compensation paid in lieu of the
original vow went to sustain the sanctuary services, and the Lord reserved to
Himself some unalienable rights. Some things when devoted could not be withheld
or withdrawn under any circumstances. He demanded a tenth of the produce of the
land, and enforced His claim with righteous and unrelaxing rigour. Thus the
preservation and perpetuation of Jehovah’s worship were secured, and not left
contingent upon the fickleness and uncertainty of human devotedness.
Righteousness lies at the foundation of the Levitical economy; is the basis of
natural and revealed religion. Leviticus is a witness to Christ and His gospel.
In Him we have combined all that the law embodied--Altar, Sacrifice, Priest.
Simplicity, and purity of aims, loftiest motives, deepest meanings, and
incomparable excellence, lift the law and the gospel infinitely above all other
religions of the world. The superiority to Jewish narrowness and bigotry, to
human sinfulness and shortsightedness, demonstrate their divinity of origin,
mutual dependence, absolute authority, undying vigour, and inestimable worth. (F.
W. Brown.)
The extraordinary in the service of God
This is part of the law concerning singular vows, extraordinary
ones; which though God did not expressly insist on, yet if they were consistent
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 deviseth liberal things (Isaiah 32:8), so the pious deviseth pious
things, and the enlarged heart would willingly de 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. (Matthew Henry,
D. D.)
The singular vow
I. Speaking in
modern phrase, we should describe this chapter as the act of the old law on the
“singular vow.” This vow was distinguished from certain other vows common among
the Hebrews by the circumstance that it was susceptible of redemption. We can
all understand that a consecration of a man’s self or of a man’s estate might
be so hurriedly or so thoughtlessly made (as in the case of Jephtha with his
daughter) that the author of them would find out afterwards how rashly the promise
had been given, and how unequal he was to the keeping it, and so be anxious to
compound by a money equivalent for the more spiritual service he found himself
incompetent to bring. This kind of engagement is called in the Hebrew the
“Neder,” and is further marked by the character of singularity or
wonderfulness; whereas towards the end of this very chapter we have another vow
provided for, and called the “Cherem,” which, being accompanied with some sort
of anathema or execration, allowed no redemption. But now, observe very
carefully the method appointed for gaining release from the obligation. Moses
was to arbitrate according to what he considered the ability of the applicant
to render. “Pay so much,” would be the decision of the lawgiver, “and thou mayest
go free.” Rut the remarkable and the beautiful thing is, that even that measure
of relief to the vow-maker was not absolutely or invariably final. Moses might
overestimate the resources of the devotee for the buying himself off from the
personal service of the Tabernacle--Moses might adjudge too heavy a ransom--and
therefore the law provided a yet further and more merciful escape. The man was
at liberty to appeal from Moses to the priest. Aaron was the priest. His very
name stands for a representative before God of the wants and the sorrows and
the sins of the people; and hence to transfer the adjudication of a debtor’s
affairs from Moses to his brother would, as you can all see, be the
introduction of a perfectly new element into the ease to be tried. The
appellant would be as poor in the presence of Aaron as he was in the presence
of the former judge. He would also be as rich. And yet the very terms of the
text are all but decisive on the fact that he would gain by carrying his cause
before this new tribunal. Aaron would certainly--if we understand the law of
the case--fix the money ransom at a lower figure. And the obvious reason is
that Aaron, by virtue of his own calling, would make up for it--i.e.,
for the deficiency--in some other way, and in some way in which Moses could not
make up for it. We must not pronounce with any authority on the exact method in
which the priest would settle with the poverty of a debtor, and make it
possible for him to go free whom his brother would have handed over to the full
penalties of the vow, to do, perhaps, Gibeonites’ work as a hewer of wood or a
drawer of water. But the probability is that the remedy in Aaron’s hands would
be the appointment of some easy offering in which the priest would render him
the aid of his sacred functions.
II. Now it will
hardly require any one of us to be very deep in controversial divinity to
understand that if we are going to Christianise this type and turn it to the
account of a modern religious experience, we shall be treading on most
critical, though it may turn out
very lawful and very instructive, ground. In a word, then, let us
say we are now having no business whatever with an unregenerate man, nor any
business whatever with the sacrifice of Christ as the only channel of his justification.
The solitary topic of the text is a topic for men already in the covenant.
Regeneration, and even justification, must be understood as settled already;
and the vow-making of Leviticus must be looked upon wholly and solely as the
service of the Christian, at peace
with the law, but struggling with subsequent duties. Is there no difference?
There is all the difference in the world between the terms on which the great
God will take a man to heaven and the terms on which He will treat him when
already in the covenant. In the former transaction the man may vow as he likes;
he can pay nothing, and he is never asked to pay. In the latter transaction,
where the former is finished, the man is commanded to pay, and struggles to
pay; but, nevertheless, our point with you is that times without number he is
unable to pay. The universal and the sad fact is that entire duty is what none
of us can render. Even in the Church the law is too much for us. And what we
have to do a hundred times a day, and all our lives long, is to fall back on
the solitary and sufficient and omnipotent righteousness of Christ. We do
greatly err if we limit the sacerdotal functions of Immanuel to the gaining us
forgiveness at our conversion or the taking us to heaven when we die. We want a
priest every moment; some one that is to furnish the balance of service and
duty demanded by our profession, but never forthcoming. Those two men, Moses
and Aaron, may be said to travel with the Christian every inch of his journey:
Moses standing for what I ought to do and to be; Aaron standing for what I take
refuge in as often as I come short or fall below, “If he be poorer than thy
estimation.” Which of us is not poorer than the Lawgiver’s estimation? Can we
pay what is due from us? We acknowledged, when first we believed, that we could
do nothing of the kind. But remember that there is a power and a merit in the
righteousness of Christ that continues at the disposal of the saint till the
day of his death. Immanuel is certain to judge me, or, according to the text,
to value me on other grounds than those of justice and of law: and the reason
is that He has something to give me, something of His own. He is my Priest, and
has business with the altar and the sacrifice, and under the gospel Christ is
Himself all three. You who tell me my duty are only my lawgivers fresh from
Mount Sinai. So is the Sermon on the Mount; so is my conscience; so is
everything and every one, but Christ. But do you not see that if a Mediator,
who for ever is holding up His righteousness on my behalf--if He values me my
value alters? I am now not the bankrupt debtor who had not enough to pay, I am
that debtor and some one else besides. I am a part of Christ. I bring now my
poor offerings of duty, for I must still bring them, but I bring them covered
with blood, and made worth something by blood. And, therefore, though I was not
rich enough to pay what I owed as bare law sat and measured my resources, I can
pay the uttermost farthing as soon as Jesus the Saviour adds His own Cross to my
inheritance. (H. Christopherson.)
The provisions of righteousness and grace
Now, in the case of a person devoting himself, or his beast, his
house, or his field, unto the Lord, it was obviously a question of capacity or
worth; and, hence, there was a certain scale of valuation, according to age.
Moses, as the representative of the claims of God, was called upon to estimate,
in each case, according to the standard of the sanctuary. If a man undertakes
to make a vow he must be tried by the standard of righteousness; and, moreover,
in all cases we are called upon to recognise the difference between capacity
and title. Moses had a certain standard from which he could not possibly
descend. He had a certain rule from which he could not possibly swerve. If any
one could come up to that, well; if not, he had to take his place accordingly.
What, then, was to be done in reference to the person who was unable to rise to
the height of the claims set forth by the representative of Divine
righteousness? Hear the consolatory answer (Leviticus 27:8). In other words, if it be
a question of man’s undertaking to meet the claims of righteousness, then he
must meet them. But if, on the other hand, a man feels himself wholly unable to
meet those claims, he has only to fall back upon grace, which will take him up,
just as he is.
Moses is the representative of the claims of Divine righteousness. The priest
is the exponent of the provisions of Divine grace. The poor man who was unable
to stand before Moses fell back into the arms of the priest. Thus it is ever.
If we cannot “dig” we can “beg”; and directly we take the place of a beggar it
is no longer a question of what we are able to earn, but of what God is pleased
to give. “Grace all the work shall crown, through everlasting days.” How happy
it is to be debtors to grace! How happy to take when God is glorified in
giving! When man is in question it is infinitely better to dig than to beg; but
when God is in question the case is the very reverse. I would just add, that I
believe this entire chapter bears, in an especial manner, upon the nation of
Israel. It is intimately connected with the two preceding chapters. Israel made
“a singular vow” at the foot of Mount Horeb; but were quite unable to meet the
claims of law--they were far “poorer than Moses’ estimation.” But, blessed be
God, they will come in under the rich provisions of Divine grace. (C. H.
Mackintosh.)
Influence of a singular vow
I made a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee were
driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of
freedom to the slaves. (President Lincoln.)
A vow kept
I met some time ago a gentleman residing in a retired town
in Kent, who told that he was recently confined to his house by indisposition
and inclement weather on a wintry Sunday. When the rest of the family were at
church he took up George Muller’s book, in which he describes “The Lord’s
Dealings” with him. He became so much interested in the author’s life and
labours that he promised his conscience, then and there, that if a certain
business transaction he had in hand resulted in a certain amount of success, he
would send the philanthropist £100 for his Orphans’ Home. The success was
realised, and he was then just on the point of sending off a cheque for the
promised amount. (Elihu Burritt.)
Brittle vows
It is said of Andreas, one of the kings of Hungary, that having
engaged himself by promise to go to the holy wars (as they then called them), went
with all his forces, and coming to Jerusalem, only bathed himself there, as one
that had washed off his promise, and so returned back again without striking
One blow. Such is the case with many men at present, their promises, covenants,
and agreements with others, though sealed and subscribed, prove too, too often
as brittle as the glasses they drink in; no bounds will hold them, they rob the
Grecians of their proverb, and own it themselves. For let but the worst of men
say they will do this or that, is as much as if they had sworn they would not
do it, unless it be when they embark themselves in some unwarrantable actions,
and the sun may sooner be thrust out of his sphere than they diverted from
their adamantine resolutions. (J. Spencer.)
The redemption of a singular vow
Incidents in Oriental history often read like parables. Men are
moved by strange motives to do strange things; and the student from the west
wanders in a maze of fancies and facts that are bewildering indeed. Thus it is
that the early portion of a missionary’s life in an eastern land teems with
things that are unreal, and he is surrounded by fellow-men who seem in no true
sense his fellows. There is so much that is inexplicable to him in their
motives and conduct, that, until he gets a “clue to the maze,” from a constant
study of the religions that dominate their lives, his blunders are many, and
sometimes even disastrous to his mission. The following is an instance of what
I mean, and as it is recorded as an historical fact, will serve the purpose
admirably: “Abd-al-Muttalib once vowed that if he should be so greatly blessed
as to have ten sons, one should certainly be devoted to Allah. In process of
time, the number was fulfilled, and the reluctant father gathered his offspring
in the Kaaba, and cast lots for the one to be sacrificed. The lot fell upon
Abdalla, the beautiful son of his old age. The sacrifical knife was solemnly
prepared”; and, like Abraham, he stood ready for the awful deed. But the lad’s
sisters came to the rescue. They knew that the Arabs offered camels in
sacrifice, and in their abounding grief they entreated their father to cast
lots between their brother and ten of these valuable creatures. He consented;
but, to their sorrow, the lot fell a second time on the favourite boy. The
number of beasts was then doubled, and the lot cast again; but still it fell
upon the lad. Time after time trial was made, as the sorrowing sisters and the
troubled father became more and more desperate in their anxiety to save the
dear one. At last one hundred camels had been proffered, and then, to their
great joy, the lot fell upon the beasts. Abdalla was saved. God had set his own value upon the
devoted boy, and when an equivalent was provided he was free. Arabs value
highly the “ships of the desert”; for they are so essential to their mode of
life. But a human being is more precious than many of them. This was recognised
when ten camels were proffered; but until an unprecedented number had been
Divinely sanctioned, the true worth of the man was not fully believed in. Thus, all the world over,
man has had to learn the value of his fellow by degrees. Many have not learnt
the lesson yet, because only man’s Maker and Redeemer can aright estimate the worth
of man, and reveal it to us. This He hath done in the gift of His Only-begotten
Son, who took man’s place that the lot might fall upon Him as of more than
equal value with the whole of our race. (Robert Spurgeon.)
Philip Henry’s vow
A good man named Philip Henry resolved, when he was young, to give
himself to God, and he did it in these words: “I take God the Father to be my Chief
End; I take God the Son to be my King and Saviour; I take God the Holy Ghost to
be my Guide and Sanctifier; I take the Bible to be my rule of life; I take all
God’s people to be my friends; and here I give my body and soul to be God’s--for God to use
for ever.” That was Philip
Henry’s resolve, which he wrote out for himself when he was young; and he put
at the end of it--“I make this vow of my own mind freely: God give me grace to
keep it.” (C. Bullock.)
A vow fulfilled
“I remember that when we arrived at the hotel at White Mountains,
the ladies sat down to a cup of tea, but I preferred to take a walk alone. It
was a beautiful spot. The sun was just then reclining his head behind Mount
Washington, with all that glorious drapery of an American sunset, of which we
know nothing in this country. I felt that I should like to be walking with my
God on this earth! I said, ‘What shall I render to my Lord for all His benefits
to me?’ I was led further to repeat that question which Paul asked under other
circumstances, ‘Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ The answer came
immediately. It was this: ‘It is true thou canst not bring the many thousands
thou hast left in thy native country to see this beautiful scenery; but thou
canst create beautiful scenes for them. It is possible on a suitable spot so to
arrange art and nature, that they shall be within the walk of every working man
in Halifax; that he shall go and take his stroll there after he has done his
hard day’s toil, and be able to get home again without being tired.’“ He
pondered the thought, prayed over it, and the next day resolved to carry it
into execution. On his return to England he took immediate steps for the
fulfilment of his purpose; the design of the proposed park was entrusted to the
late Sir Joseph Paxton, and on the 14th of August, 1857, it was publicly
opened. It covers twelve and a half acres of ground, and its entire cost was
upwards of £30,000. (Memoir of Sir Francis Crossley.)
Verse 25
According to the shekel of the sanctuary.
Sanctuary measure demanded in small things
The 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 1 Samuel 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 (1 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:12; Revelation 22:12). (A. A. Bonar.)
Verses 30-33
All the tithes of the land . . . is the Lord’s.
The history of tithes
I. 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 (Genesis 14:20; Hebrews 7:6). Later, in Jacob’s vow (Genesis 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 (Numbers 18:21-24), who were to give a
tithe of what they received to the priests (Leviticus 27:26-28). The sacred festivals
were later made occasion for a further tithe (Deuteronomy 12:5-6; Deuteronomy 12:11; Deuteronomy 12:17; Deuteronomy 14:22-23); which was allowed
to come in money value rather than in kind (Deuteronomy 14:24-26).
3. Hezekiah’s reformation. This was signalised by the eagerness with
which the people came with their tithes (2 Chronicles 31:5-6).
4. After the Captivity. Nehemiah made marked and emphatic
arrangements concerning the tithing (Nehemiah 10:37; Nehemiah 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 (Matthew 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 Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; Romans 15:27; 1 Corinthians 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, 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.)
Tithes
I know of two men who started business with this view: “We will
give to God one-tenth of our profits.” The first year the profits were
considerable; the tithe was consequently considerable. The next year there was
increase in the profits, and, of course, increase in the tithe. In a few years
the profits became very, very large indeed, so that the partners said one to
another: “Is not a tenth of this rather too much to give away? Suppose we say 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 God
What 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 (Numbers 18:21), and the next tenth,
consecrated and feasted on at
Jerusalem, or given away to the
poor (Deuteronomy 12:6; Deuteronomy 28:29). Seed or fruit might
be redeemed; and there might be good reasons for a man wishing to redeem this
part of the 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 Christians
In 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 (1 Corinthians 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 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 (Matthew 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 (Galatians 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 2 Corinthians 8:7-9). (S. H.
Kellogg, D. D.)
Verse 34
These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the
children of Israel.
The moral and ceremonial commandments, as compared with the gospel
law
Many 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 (Hebrews 4:2). And upon the whole matter
we may see cause to bless God that we are not come to Mount Sinai (Hebrews 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 (Romans 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 (Hebrews 9:10), imposed till the time of
reformation, a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 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.)
The covenant in its relation to nations and individuals
The 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.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》