"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. 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. 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. 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. 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. 31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. 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. 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. 34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." — Leviticus 27:26-34 KJV.
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.
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 חֵ֡רֶם (cherem) a much stronger term than it is translated by in our version. It differs from the נֶדֶר (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, אַךְ (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 חָרַם (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 חָרַם (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.
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.
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. 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.”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment