Laws Concerning Vows, Tithes, and Things Devoted to the Lord

Continuing a chronological Bible study:

(Leviticus 27:1) And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

After what seemed the conclusion of the laws God gave Moses at Mount Sinai to pass on to the people in chapter 26, here the Lord continues speaking to Moses.  We will see that it is a totally different topic, but as chapter 26 covered what would happen if the people did not do God's previous commands, it seems logical that chapter should have been the last in Leviticus. Indeed, Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on the Bible, wrote that he thought this 27th chapter originally followed the 25th chapter, and that the 26th chapter was the last in the book of Leviticus:

"As the law was anciently written upon skins of parchment, sheep or goat skins, pasted or stitched together, and all rolled up in one roll, the matter being written in columns, one of those columns might have been very easily displaced, and thus whole chapters might have been readily interchanged - It is likely that this might have been the case in the present instance. Others endeavor to solve this difficulty, by supposing that the 27th chapter was added after the book had been finished; and therefore there is apparently a double conclusion, one at the end of the 26th and the other at the end of the 27th chapter. However the above may have been, all the ancient versions agree in concluding both the chapters in nearly the same way; yet the 26th chapter must be allowed to be by far the most natural conclusion of the book."

Now back to what God told Moses in the 27th chapter:

(2) “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them, ‘When a man makes a special vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by your estimation.'"

God gave Moses more instructions to give to the children of Israel.  This apparently pertained to special vows made that involved devoting a person himself or his children, livestock, or fields, etc., to the service of the Lord.  The people vowed were to be evaluated as follows:

(3) "'And if your estimation shall be of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary.'"

A man from twenty to sixty years of age, if consecrated to the Lord by a vow, had a monetary value of fifty shekels of silver, according to the standard that was kept in the sanctuary.  As often such vows might be made impulsively in cases of illness or danger, I believe a way was made for people to be redeemed.  According to the 18th and 19th century commentators I study, fifty shekels was equal to about seven pounds, 10 shillings of silver.  While that may not seem like a huge value for a person, I believe precious metal was probably worth a lot more in Biblical times than it is now; plus, if you calculated for inflation, the value would be exceedingly more now. 

(4) "'And if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels.'"

If a woman was dedicated in a vow, she would be worth thirty shekels, as she would most likely be inferior in strength to a man, and perhaps could not be of so much use in the service of the sanctuary as would a man.  Lest feminists get their ire up at this notion, let's remember that in Christ women are no less esteemed than men, because, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

(5) "'And if it be from five years old to twenty years old, then your estimation for a male shall be twenty shekels, and for a female ten shekels.'"

If the vow was for a person between the ages of five and twenty, then the value was set at twenty shekels for a male, and ten shekels for a female.  Again this would have been because a young person could not be expected to accomplish as much as an adult, and the female being less was related to the estimate of her probable value as an adult in relation to an adult man.

(6) "'And if it be from a month old to five years old, then your estimation for a male shall be five shekels of silver, and for a female your estimation shall be three shekels of silver.'"

If a dedicated child was only one month to five years in age, then the valuation was to be five shekels of silver for a male, and three shekels for a female.

(7) "'And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it is a male, then your estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for a female ten shekels.'"

If a dedicated person was beyond sixty years of age, then it might be assumed they were past the age of useful labor, and were valued less. 

(8) "‘But if he is poorer than your estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall set a value for him; according to the ability of him who vowed, the priest shall value him.'"

If the man is poorer and cannot pay according to the estimation given, he may present his case to the priest, and the priest would consider his circumstances and ability to repay, and would set a value accordingly.

(9) "'And if it is a beast that men may bring as an offering to the LORD, all that anyone gives to the LORD shall be holy. (10) He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; and if he at all changes beast for beast, then it and the one exchanged for it shall be holy.'"

I believe the meaning is that if a man vowed a beast as an offering to the Lord, then any beast that was so vowed was holy to the Lord.  After it was vowed, it was not to be put to any common use, or altered in any way, and it could not be exchanged with another beast because the person who made the vow was having second thoughts.  If the person who made the vow tried to exchange the beast vowed with a different beast, then both beasts would then be considered holy and for the Lord.

(11) "'And if it is an unclean animal which they do not offer as a sacrifice to the LORD, then he shall present the animal before the priest, (12) And the priest shall value it, whether it is good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be.'"

If the person vowed an animal that was unclean and not to be sacrificed to the Lord, then that animal was to be presented to the priest and he would give a value to it according to how useful the animal might be.  Whatever value the priest set upon such an animal, that is what it was to be.

(13) "‘But if he wants at all to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth to your estimation.'"

However, if a man vowed an unclean animal and then wanted to redeem it, he had to pay the priest's valuation plus an additional one-fifth of the valuation.  I imagine this was designed so that a person would not make a rash vow with a rather worthless animal, as regard to its usefulness to the priest or the Lord's sanctuary, and then be able to buy it back at a low valuation, when that animal might actually be more valuable to the person who made the vow.  That would be cheating the Lord, and having to add 20% more to redeem it might prevent people from being tempted to make such vows.

(14) "‘And when a man sanctifies his house to be holy to the LORD, then the priest shall set a value for it, whether it is good or bad; as the priest estimates it, so shall it stand.'"

If a man vowed his house to be used for the Lord, either set apart for sacred service or perhaps to be rented or sold and the money given to the tabernacle, then the priest was to give an estimation of its value, and according to his estimation, it was to be so valued.

(15) "'And if he who sanctified it would redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your estimation to it, and it shall be his.'"

Once again, a person's own house might be of more value to himself, the one who vowed it, so to buy it back, he must add 20% of the value to the original value set by the priest.

(16) "'And if a man sanctifies to the Lord part of a field of his possession, then your estimation shall be according to the seed of it; a homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.'"

The word "part" was supplied by the King James Version translators and it is generally agreed by Biblical scholars that it should be supplied here because apparently it was not lawful for a man to vow his whole estate, thus leaving his family with nothing.  In this case, if a man vowed some of his land, there was a particular formula for valuing it; the valuation was to be set according to the quantity of seed which could be sowed.  The conversion of a homer into a present dry measure seems to be all over the place, but an important point is that a homer is not to be confused with an omer.  An omer was one-tenth of an ephah, and a homer was ten ephahs.  Since an omer was described as what a man could eat in one day, I suppose its measure was not exactly known.  By calculations I have used in the past, I believe a homer was about 50 gallons, which is in the middle of the range I have seen, so I guess my guess is as good as any.  A homer of barley seed was to be valued at fifty shekels of silver.

(17) "‘If he sanctifies his field from the Year of Jubilee, according to your valuation it shall stand. (18) But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon to him the money due according to the years that remain till the Year of Jubilee, and it shall be deducted from your estimation.'"

If a man vowed his land in a jubilee year so that it was dedicated for a full term until the next Jubilee, the priest's full valuation of the land was to stand.  However, if he dedicated his land after the Jubilee, then the priest was to estimate the value according to the number of years that remained until the next Year of Jubilee.

(19) "‘And if he who sanctified the field ever wishes to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your estimation to it, and it shall belong to him.'"

Just as with his animals and house, if the man who vowed his land wished to redeem it, he must add 20% of the value to the priest's estimated value and then it would be returned to his ownership.

(20) "‘But if he does not redeem the field, or if he has sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore.'"

At first glance, this verse is a bit confusing, but I believe there are two different "hes".  If he, the original owner who vowed the land, did not wish to redeem his land, and he, the priest, had then sold the land to another man, it was not allowed to be redeemed again.

(21) "'But the field, when it is released in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the LORD, as a devoted field; it shall be the possession of the priest.'"

That land that had been vowed and dedicated to the Lord, when released in the Jubilee, would not go back to the original owner, but was to be the Lord's, devoted to Him, and was to be a possession of the priest.

(22) "‘And if a man dedicates to the LORD a field which he has bought, which is not the field of his possession, (23) Then the priest shall reckon to him the worth of your estimation, to the Year of Jubilee, and he shall give your valuation on that day as a holy offering to the LORD.'"

The previous verses spoke of a man dedicating part of the land that was his inheritance; verse 22 deals with a man dedicating a field that he had bought with his own money and not part of land passed down to him and part of his family's possession.  In this case the priest would estimate the value of the field, allowing for the years until Jubilee, and the owner of the field who dedicated it to the Lord would give that amount as a holy offering to the Lord.

(24) "‘In the Year of Jubilee the field shall return to him from whom it was bought, to him who owned the land as a possession.'"

Still referring to the field that had been purchased that was dedicated to the Lord, the one who dedicated it having given the value of it as an offering to the Lord, the land would be returned to the original owner in the Year of Jubilee.  This did not mean the man who had bought it, but the person he had bought it from, that person being the owner through inheritance from his fathers before him.  As stated before, people could not vow or sell their entire estates and leave their family with nothing.  If a man did sell part of his estate because he was in financial straits, that part would be returned to him in Jubilee.

(25) "‘And all your estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerahs to the shekel.'"

All the priest's estimations were to be according to the shekel kept in the sanctuary which was to be the standard.  There were twenty gerahs to one shekel, a gerah being defined as a "kernel" or a "grain", the smallest weight or coin among the Israelites, about two and a half or three pennies of American money.

(26) "'Only the firstborn of the animals, which should be the LORD’s firstborn, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or sheep, it is the LORD'S.'"

No man could make a vow or dedicate a firstborn animal because that was to have been set aside for the Lord already (Exodus 13:2):  "Sanctify to me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast; it is Mine.”

(27) "‘And if it is an unclean animal, then he shall redeem it according to your estimation, and shall add one-fifth to it; or if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your estimation.'"

The firstborn of an unclean animal could be redeemed according to the estimation made by the priest plus an additional one-fifth of that estimated value.  If it was not redeemed by the owner, it was to be sold according to the priest's value, but the one-fifth was not added.  The original owner who vowed an unclean animal probably placed more value on it than would anyone else.  By having to add one-fifth the value would prevent someone from being tempted to make a rash vow with a practically worthless animal only to be able to buy it right back at a cheap price; that would not be a vow worthy to the Lord.  That would not be the case if it was sold to another person.

(28) "‘Nevertheless no devoted thing that a man may devote to the LORD of all that he has, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the LORD.'"

Apparently things completely devoted to the Lord were different than more common vows dedicating something to the Lord.  Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, put it this way:  "The difference between these and other sanctified things arose from the different expression of the vow. If a man dedicated any thing to God, binding himself with a solemn curse never to alienate it to any other purpose, then it was a thing devoted."  Therefore a man could either dedicate something for the use of the Lord's sanctuary that could be later redeemed or sold, or he could devote something (servant, beast, or field) totally to the Lord which could never be sold or redeemed, but was most holy to the Lord.

(29) "'None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.'"

This is a rather difficult verse to interpret.  I believe the sense must be that no devoted person could ever be redeemed, but would die in that devoted state.  What was translated as "put to death", that is, "muth", can indeed mean "kill", but it can also mean merely "die".

(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 to the LORD.'"

All tithes, "maasar", of the land, that is, one-tenth from the seed of the land or the fruit of the trees, was to be the Lord's, holy and devoted to Him.

(31) "'And if a man wants at all to redeem any of his tithes, he shall add one-fifth to it.'"

This seems a rather odd verse, as I would think a tithe was devoted to the Lord only.  Perhaps the meaning is that the first tenth that should have been the Lord's could be instead used by the owner, maybe unintentionally, but he then would have to give an additional one-fifth to the Lord.

(32) "'And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the LORD.'"

Concerning tithes of a herd or flock, one tenth were to be holy to the Lord.  "Whatever passes under the rod" might just pertain to whatever animal was led out or brought in under the shepherd's rod, under his care and direction, or it might have a more distinct and detailed meaning as suggested by Adam Clarke (and others):  “When a man was to give the tithe of his sheep or calves to God, he was to shut up the whole flock in one fold, in which there was one narrow door capable of letting out one at a time. The owner, about to give the tenth to the Lord, stood by the door with a rod in his hand, the end of which was dipped in vermilion or red ochre. The mothers of those lambs or calves stood without: the door being opened, the young ones ran out to join themselves to their dams; and as they passed out the owner stood with his rod over them, and counted one, two, three, four, five, etc., and when the tenth came, he touched it with the coloured rod, by which it was distinguished to be the tithe calf, sheep, etc., and whether poor or lean, perfect or blemished, that was received as the legitimate tithe.”

(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 exchanged one shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.'"

This verse does indeed make it sound as if the sheep or calves were to be counted, and specifically every tenth one was to be given to the Lord as tithe.  The owner and offerer of the tithed animal was not to examine it to determine if it was good or bad, even if he would exchange it for a better animal.  God would accept it as tithe as if it were a perfect unblemished animal, and just because He would, men were likewise not to exchange it for a poorer quality animal knowing He would accept any tenth animal.  Every tenth animal was to be considered tithe, and was not to be exchanged for another in its place; if a person chose to exchange it, then the tenth animal and the one exchanged would be holy to the Lord.  A tithed animal could not be redeemed; it was the Lord's.

(34) These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai.

"These commandments" may refer to all the commandments in the book of Leviticus.  This conclusion is very similar to that at the end of the 26th chapter.  It has already been suggested that this chapter may have followed the 25th, and that the 26th originally terminated the book.