Leviticus 27

Ver. I. jljlND the Lord spake unto Moses, saying. Some religious people, it is possible, were touched with such a sense of what Moses had now delivered, in the foregoing promises and threats, that they thought of giving themselves wholly unto God, or of vowing some of their goods; to him: and therefore he gives Moses further directions for the regulating of such vows. not capable to. be devoted to God; but then it might And.still less.was demanded as the value of them; because children so small were very weak and imperfect, and the price therefore set accordingly. But the words may be understood, not of children that were a month old, but that were in the first month of their life: and Samuel we find was devoted to God before he was born. seer, who is there said (o have dedicated a great deal to maintain the house of the Lord. Tlien the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad, &c] He makes the same law in this case which he had done about unclean beasts; that the priest should consider the worth of it, and accordingly set the price, having respect to the condition of the house, whether it was great or little, old or new, &c. < As the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.’] That was to be the fixed price; which no man was to attempt to alter.’ his paternal inheritance, (as that mentioned ver. 1G.) but bought of the priests, to whom it was fallen by a vow; or of him to whom the priests had sold it. of the first sort; that is, sacred to the Lord and his holy uses. And thus the great Sanhedrin (called in Scripture the whole congregation) might devote those to he a cherem, who, going to the wars, did not obey orders, and perform the charge laid upon them. An example of which we have, Judges xxi. 5. 1 Sam. xiv. 24. I omit the other, two for brevity’s sake, (of which there are examples, Josh. vi. 26. Ezra x. 8. Acts xxiii. 12.14.21. see Selden, ib. cap. 7, 8.) because the cherem hero mentioned by Moses is of this second sort: for it is evident that the cherem of the first sort, mentioned vcr. 28. was of such things, over which they had an entire power, to dispose of them as they pleased. And therefore those words, both of man and beast, the Hebrews understand of their slaves, whether men or women (who were Canaanitcs, or gentiles, not others), who were in their power as much as their beasts, to give away or to sell. But to take away their life, or to give them to be slain, was not in their power; but all tho effect of this cherem was, that the whole right which they had to the service of such slaves, was transferred by him that devoted them to the service of the priests and sacred uses. •• (Sec Selden in that book, cap/ 9. p. 518, &c.) But though they might not devote their servants to death, yet they might their enemies, before they went out to war with them; and such of their own people also as did not observe the military laws. An example of which we have, Numb, xxi. 2. Upon which ticcount also, the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were slain, (Judges xxi. 9, 10.) for violating the solemn public cherem, pronounced against those that came not up. to Mizpeh, (ver.5.) And this is the cherem spoken of in this verse. (See Selden, cap. 10.) For as for the cherem, whereby a man was excommunicated, it only loaded him with many curses, and mado him execrable, so that no man might come near him; but did not touch his life, as he there shews, p. 520. press to get out to them; and as they passed by, one by one, a man who stood at the gate with a rod, coloured with ochre, told them in order; and when the tenth came out, whether it was male or female, sound or not, he marked it with his rod, and said, Let this be holy in the name of the tenth. And this account R. Solomon and. others give of this matter; of which notion they are so fond, that R. Bechai (upon Numb, xvii.) makes Jacob (who vowed tithe of all that God should give him) to have decimated his children on this manner, beginning at Benjamin and stopping at Levi, who was the tenth, according to that rec-, koning, and hath some pretty conceits about it. But Bochartus thinks Moses doth not speak here of the rod of the tithes, but of the shepherd’s crook; and so doth Aben Ezra, the Syriac, and the Vulgar: for the flock passed under his rod as oft as he numbered them, which was every morning and evening (if he was a good shepherd), especially in the evening. (See Hierozoicon, par. i. lib. ii. cap. 44. p. 499.) Of this Jeremiah speaks, (chap, xxxiii. 13.) and Ezekiel •alludes to it, when he saith, (chap. xx. 37.) I will cause you to pass tinder the rod. Where Kimchi notes it is the, same phrase with this in Leviticus, and as much as to say, “As he that telleth his sheep holdeth a rod in his hand, and telleth them one by one, and brings out the tenth. for the tithe; so will I number you, and the sinners shall perish,” &c. Tlie tenth sJutll be holy unto the Lord.] That is, saith Maimonides (in his forenamed treatise called Bechoroth), the fat and the blood of them was offered at the altar; and then the owners eat the flesh any where in Jerusalem, as they did the lesser holy things. For the priests had no portion of them, but all belonged to the owner, as did the paschal lamb. If there was any blemish in them, whether before or after the tithing, then they might be tjaten in any place. And so Bartenora, (as Dr. Outram observes, lib. i. de Sacrificiis, cap. 11.) “we do not find in the whole law ihatany part of these tenths was given to the priests.” So a great many other of their doctors, who observe that Moses doth not reckon these among the twenty-four gifts (for so many they make the whole number of them) which were bestowed upon the priesthood. r But as there is nothing else in Scripture to warrant this, which no where prescribes how these tenths should be employed, but only declares that they are holy to the Lord; so this very phrase, I should think, sufficiently signifies that they belonged to the Lord’s ministers; and if not entirely to the priests, much less entirely to the owners of them (before they were the Lord’s); but if they were to eat them at Jerusalem, as the Jews imagine, the Levites sure were to have their share, and the stranger and other poor people, as they were to have in their second tithe of corn, wherewith they made feasts there, (Deut. xiv.27 — 29.) Vcr. 33. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it.’] It is not easy to give an account why God required so punctually the tenth calf, goat, or" lamb; that though it were never so lean or blemished, Jip would not suffer it to be exchanged for the better, unless it were to avoid all disputes, strife, and contention. There are those, indeed, that think the reason was; because in those ages this was looked upon as so sacred a number, that it mystically denoted God, whose Divine perfections, providence, and bounty, they were thought to acknowledge, who gave the tenth to him; which was not to be. altered and changed no more than he himself can be. ♦ If he change it at all, then both shall be holy.] As it was in beasts avowed to God, (ver. 9, 10.) < It shall not be redeemed.] Nor might they sell it, no more than suffer it to be redeemed. If they did, he that sold it’ or bought it got nothing (as Maimonides speaks); and besides, the seller was to be scourged, as he that sold the cherems given to the priest, ver. 28. (Bechoroth, cap. 6. sect. 5.).A COMMENTARY [CHAT.,U ings, and the skins of the sacrifices (which alone made a good revenue, as Philo observes), and like wise all such consecrations as are mentioned in this chapter, the Lcvites’ cities and suburbs, it will easily appear it could not be so little as a fifth part of the fruit of the land which came to their share. Now the reason we find no such certain rate determined by the gospel, as was by this law, is, because there was no need of it; and for the same reason there w T as none, for a good while, settled by the church; all the revenues belonging to it, which served for all sorts of pious uses, arising from the devotion and oblations of the people, which were more than enough for God’s service. This was visible in the beginning of our religion, when the first Christians far outdid any thing that had been done under the law. And they could not imagine, that they who succeeded them would fall so short as not to offer sufficient for God’s service; though not so much as they had done, because there could not be the same necessity. And so Mr. Scldcn himself observes, that this reason is given by Agobardus, why nothing was decreed in councils, or publicly promulgated by the fathers in the first ages, concerning giving of their goods,. and adorning churches; because there was no necessity of it: the religious devotion, the love of Christians to such things ultro cestuante, being very fervent, and abounding of its own accord.: And when love began to wax cold, so that they found it needful to make laws about such things, they could not think fit to order less for the settled maintenance of God’s service than the tenth (besides all voluntary oblations), which had been the part most eminently limited under the law of nature, long before the law of Moses. See Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 34. where he.saith, Christians, having greater hopes, could not give less than they did in former times, when their hope was lower… I shall add but one observation more, from an excellent person of our own church, (Mr. Thorndike, in his Rights of the Church, &c. p. 219.) that as all such consecrations, as here are mentioned by MoseS^ tended to communion Mith God, by the participation of sacrifices offered to him, which were maintained by such contributions; so whatsoever is devoted by Christians unto such holy uses, as to build and repair churches, to maintain holy assemblies, and to support those who minister God’s ordinances, or enable tho poor to attend upon them, hath the like intention to obtain an interest in the sacrifice of Christ, represented in the cucharist; which is the chief part of the service rendered to God in the church. This is notably exemplified in the account which Tertullian gives of Marcion the heretic, (lib. de Praescriptionibus, cap; 30.) who, when he first embraced the faith of Christ, and was received into the church, pecur niam Catholicce Ecclesics contulit, contributed a sum of mo* ney to the church; which money, when he fell off from the Christian truth to his own heresy, was straightway thrown out together’with him. This both demonstrates that they continued, in those days, to bring offerings into the trea«- sury of the church; and that the intention of them was, that they might have communion with, the church in all its services; for when men fell off from Christianity they cast out their offerings, in token they had no communication with them. i! * I end.all with the words of Conradus Pellicanus upon the thirtieth verse of this chapter; which will shew the sense of the first reformers in this matter. “All the tithe is the Lord’s, and remains so for ever, &c. and therefore tithes are to be paid by Divine and natural right, and religiously expended, according to his appointment, &c. And if tithes should not be sufficient for the maintenance of those who ought to be sustained in the church, at the public charge, the ninths, or. the eighths, ought of necessity to be raised by the judgment and consent of the church; for the law of charity dictates this, and the excellent, irreprehcnsible ordinance of God: which charity binds more strongly in the evangelical law than in the Mosaical; inasmuch as the church ought to be more perfect than the synagogue; and charity than fear.” THE FOURTH BOOK OF MOSES, CALLED

Leviticus 27:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, Wlien a man shall make a singular vow. And, first, if any man vowed himself, or his children, wholly to the service of God in the tabernacle, he directs what was to be done in that case. Which he calls a singular, ox extraordinary vow; and by Philo is called tv X v utyakrt, the great vow: it being a wonderful piece of devotion (as the word japlili in the Hebrew imports), because men were desirous to help God’s priests in the meanest ministry; such as bringing in wood, carrying out ashes, sweeping away the dust, and such-like. The persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation.] The meaning would have been more plain; ifthe words had been translated just as thy lie in the Hebrew, According to thy estimation, the person shall be for the Lord. For this immediately suggests to one’s thoughts, that the service of the persons themselves thus devoted, was not to be employed in the tabernacle; but a value set upon them by the priest, and that to be employed/or the Lord, i. e. for holy uses; for repairing the sanctuary, suppose, or any thing belonging to it. The reason why God would not accept the persons themselves, as they desired, but the value of them, for his service, seems to be, because there was a sufficient number of persons peculiarly designed for all the work of the tabernacle; which he would not have encumbered by more attendants there than were needful.

Leviticus 27:3

And thy estimation shall be. That the priest might not either overvalue, or undervalue any person, the rates are here set down which he should demand for their redemption. Of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old.] For at twenty years of age (saith Proeopius Gazaeus) men begin to be fit for business, and continue so till sixty; when it is time to leave it off. Thy estimation sliall be fifty shekels of silver.] That this one rule should serve for all men, though of different qualities, Philo thinks was fit, for several reasons, which he gives in his book of Special Laws: the principal is, because God regarded only the vow, the value of which was equal, whosoever made it, whether a great man or a poor., After the shekel of the sanctuary.] See Exod. xxx. 13..

Leviticus 27:4

And if it be a female, then, thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. Women could not be so serviceable as men, and therefore were valued at a less rate: for all that they could do was, to spin, or weave, or make garments, or wash for the priests and Levites..

Leviticus 27:5

And if it be from five years old evenunto twenty years old. It appears by this, that, though a child of five years old could not make a vow, yet his parents might so– lemnly devote one of that age to God; and it did oblige them to pay what is here required for the use of the sanctuary. Thy estimation, shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.] Less is required than for those above twenty, because their life was more uncertain; and they were less capable to do any service, before they came to their full growth.

Leviticus 27:6

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, &c. Before a child was a month old, it seems, it was

Leviticus 27:7

And from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, &c. They are valued much less after sixty than before, (ver. 3.) because their service then was little worth, and their life likely to be short. \ < And for a female ten shekels.’] The Hebrews think it observable, that in their youth (ver. 3, 4.) males were valued almost double to females; but now,.in old.age, they are made almost of equal value: for old women continue very serviceable in many things, when old men are not; whence they have a saying, An old woman in a house is a treasure in a house.

Leviticus 27:8

And if he be poorer than thy estimation. If he be not able to pay according to the forenamed rates. Then he shall present himself before the priest.] >Vho was then in attendance at the tabernacle; for he doth not speak of the high-priest, but of the lower. i And the priest shall value him.] According to the best information he could get of his ability; as it here follows. According to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.’] He was to examine his condition; and accordingly set such a rate upon him as he might be able to pay, without undoing his family.’»

Leviticus 27:9

And if it be a beast. Now he proceeds to the second case; which was, when any man vowed to give God a beast of some sort or other. Whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord.] And first he mentions clean beasts, such as God accepted at his altar; as these are explained by the opposite unclean beast, (ver. 11.) All that any man gives of such unto the Lord.] Whether to be sacrificed or not. Shall be holy.] Set apart for God’s service, according to the nature “of his vow; to be offered at the altar, if he so expressed it; or to be given to the priests and Levites, if that was his desire; or to be sold for the service of the tabernacle, if it was left at large; t

Leviticus 27:10

He shall not alter it, nor change it. Some think these words, alter and change, are two expressions of the same thing. But the first word may signify, that he should not alter it for any. other beast, or thing; and the second, that he should not change it for any beast of the same kind: but that very beast which was vowed, was to be given to the uses intended; and no other accepted in his stead, though it were really better. A good for a bad, or a bad for a good.] If men had been left to their liberty, either to give unto God the beast they, had vowed, or another in its room, they might have given a bad instead of a. good, as Maimonides observes, which had been a great profaneness. But supposing those that were truly religious would have brought a good instead of a bad (that is, one much fatter and more valuable), God would not suffer it, because he would preserve a reverence to things once consecrated, which he would not should return to.common uses; though a better thing was substituted in its room. If any man did change what.he had vowed, though it were for the better, he was. to be beaten, as. Maimonides saith in his treatise on this subject, (cap. 1.), And if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.] The man was to be beaten, and both the one and the other beast was to ber come God’s. Which the Jews understand thus (as Man monides tells us in the same treatise), that if he changed the beast he vowed twice or thrice, nay, a thousand times, they all became holy; and he was also to suffer the punishment of,stripes for every one of them.,* Yer. 11. But if it be an unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the Lord.] Some comprehend under this, such beasts as, though in themselves clean, yet had some blemish in them, which rendered them unfit for sacrifice. But, as they could not be offered in sacrifice, sq one would think it was not lawful to vow them either to that or any other holy use… Then he shall present the beast before the priest.] That he might consider the worth of it

Leviticus 27:12

And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad. Of a great price or a small., He was not allowed to exchange it for a clean beast; both because it was dedicated to God, and because that exchange might have been a great damage to the priest: many unclean beasts being of greater value than some clean; a horse or a camel, for instance, of greater price than a sheep or a goat. As thou vainest it, who art the priest, so shall it be.] He directs his speech to the priest, to awaken his conscience, to attend and make upright judgment; because that was to be the value of it, which the priest determined.it to be worth.

Leviticus 27:13

But if he will at all redeem it. It was in the man’s choice, either to leave the beast with the priest, or. to pay him the money at which he had rated.it. Tlienhe shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation.) If he chose the latter, it was a sign he thought it worth more than the price which the priest had set upon it/ who, could not understand the value of it so well as himself.’ And every man, as Maimonides observes, (More Nevoch, par. iii. cap. 46.) regarding his own advantage, and in-, clining naturally, to save what he can; if a beast were not rated at its just value, he that had vowed it would be disposed rather to redeem the beast than let the priest have it. Which is the reason that God orders he should in this case pay a fifth part more than the priest set upon it, that he might be sure to give the full value. Both this and the foregoing law was to preserve that from being vile and cheap, which bare the name of God, (?is he there speaks), and was consecrated to his uses.

Leviticus 27:14

And when a man shall sanctify his house to be^ holy unto the Lord. By.vowing it to God’s service; for of such sanctifying he speaks in this chapter: and this is thethird case about vows; which commonly consisted in promising to God some part of their estates, cither to serve for sacrifices, or.to be kept for some sacred uses:- whenc^ came those vast treasures which were in the house of Gpd,. mentioned 1 Chron. xxvi. 26 — 28. for they were chiefly oblations of part of the spoils taken from their enemies, which David, and Saul, and Abncr, and Joab had dedicated: together with the oblations of such persons as Samuel the^

Leviticus 27:15

And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house. If he that vowed it to God, chose afterward rather to pay the price himself than part with the house, he was to submit to the law made in the foregoing case; which was, to add a fifth part to the rate set upon it. For there was another reason why many might make this choice, (besides that mentioned in ver. 13.) because, if they did not redeem it, the house could never return to them again; no, not at the jubilee. For it is probable, that the law concerning lands (which immediately follows) was the rule for houses also, which were valued according to their distance from the year of jubilee, at a higher or lower price, as lands were, (ver. 18. 22, 23.)’• Then shall he add the fifth part of tlie money of thy estimation, and it shall be his.’) " He that gave us the law, (saith Maimonidesin his treatise on this subject, cap. ult.) knows the most intimate sense of all men’s souls, and penetrates into the most secret recesses and lurking-places of human desires: and he seeing that their love of riches would make them very saving; so that, if out of a religious motion they had consecrated any thing to him, they would be prone to repent of it; he therefore ordained, that if any man had a mind to redeem what he had consecrated, he should add a fifth part to its just value;” that is, pay well forit.

Leviticus 27:16

And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord. By a vow; after the same manner that some did a house, (ver. 14.) ■ Some part of a field.] This seems to signify, that it was not lawful for a man to vow his own field; that is, all his estate: because God wonld have no mans family undone and made beggars to enrich his sanctuary. Of his possession.] Not purchased by him, but descended to him as an inheritance from his ancestors. Then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof] It shall be valued according to the quantity of seed which is required to sow it. An omer of barley-seed shall be. valued at fifty shekels of silver.] So much land as an omer of barley would sow, was to be rated at fifty shekels, and so proportionably; so much as would take up two omers at a hundred, or half an omer at five-and-twenty. Menochius thinks it was to be rated so much yearly; but there is not the least intimation of this in the text; and his only reason for it is this of Abulensis, that it would have been too little to give for apiece of land to be held forty-nine years. (See lib. ii. de Republ. Hebrseor. cap. 19. Quaest, 7.) Which is of no force at all; for it is plain God designed a moderate rato should be set upon all things which men vowed to him; whereby men were not discouraged to vow. And this yearly rent had been excessive and oppressive: for a piece of land, which an omer of Parley (i. e. about a pottle of our measure) would sow, could yield no great crop, and consequently could not be of a considerable value; barley also being much cheaper than wheat. Concerning an omer, see Exod.xvi. 3G.

Leviticus 27:17

If he sanctify his field from the year of jubilee. Make this vow immediately after the jubilee, or in that year. According to thy estimation.] Beforementioned, of fifty j shekels for an omer of barley. It shall stand.] It shall be so rated, and nothing abated. ^

Leviticus 27:18

But if he sanctify his field after the jubilee. Some years after. Tlien the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of jubilee, &c.] The priest was to compute how many years were gone since the last jubilee, and how many yet remained till the next; and accordingly to deduct from the rate of fifty shekels beforementioned, either more or less, as the years yet to come were more or fewer.

Leviticus 27:19

If he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then shall he. add the fifth part, &e. The very same rule is given in this case, as in those of unclean beasts and houses, ver. 13. 15. - i

Leviticus 27:20

And if he will not redeem the field. When the priest hath set his value upon it, and tells him he may have it again at such a rate, if he pleases, and he refuses the offer. Or if he have sold the field to another man.] That is, if the priest, upon his refusal, have sold it to another man; and afterward he that vowed it hath a mind to it himself, and would give the price, at which he might have had it. It shall not be redeemed any more.] He was then exeluded from all benefit of redemption.

Leviticus 27:21

But the field when it goeth out in the jubilee. Out of the possession of him to whom the priest sold it. Shall be wholly unto the Lord.] Shall not return to him that vowed it, but continue God’s portion. As a field devoted.] Being solemnly consecrated to the Divine service. The possession thereof shall be the priests 9.] Who were to have the inheritance of it for their better support. But they might sell it; nay (Menochius thinks), were bound to sell it to some of the kindred of him that devoted it, or to some of his tribe; for otherwise lands would go out of the tribe to which they belonged; and besides, the priests were to have no inheritance in the land, (Numb, xviii. 20.) See him, lib. ii. de Bepubl. Hebr. cap. 19. and his Annotations upon this place. But these seem not to be solid reasons why the priests should not enjoy this land themselves: for though they were not to have any inheritance in the division of the land of Canaan, yet if any fell to them by the means now mentioned (which was but very seldom, since men were very careful to preserve their inheritances), God doth here bestow such land upon his priests; who might possess it if they pleased, because they had it in God’s right; or else sell it, (ver. 20.) and keep the money to their own use.

Leviticus 27:22

And if a man sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath bought. And consequently could enjoy only till the year of jubilee; when it was to return to the family of whom he purchased it. Which is not of the fields of his possession.] No part of

Leviticus 27:23

Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation. Set a value upon it, according to his judgment. Even nnto the year of jubilee.] With respect to the number of years, between the time of the vow and the year of jubilee. And he shall give thy estimation in that day.] Presently pay the price thattbe priest hath set upon it, without the addition of the fifth part (as Menochius well observes in the place beforementioned), which he, who redeemed his paternal inheritance, was bound to pay over and above the price at which the priest esteemed it, (ver. 19.) For this was not so imich worth as that, being but for a term of years, till the jubilee. As a holy thing unto the Lord.] As a thing devoted unto God, instead of the land, which was redeemed with this money. *

Leviticus 27:24

In the year of jubilee the field shall return unto him of tuhomit was bought, &c. Not unto him who bought the field, and then vowed it to God, but unto the hereditary owner; which is the meaning of the next words, even vnto him to whom the possession of the land did belong,

Leviticus 27:25

All thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary, &c. Full weight, according to the standard kept in the sanctuary: (see Exod. xxx. 13. and chap. xix. of this book, ver. 36.) Ver. 2C. Only the firstling of the beasts, which shall be the Lord’s firstling, no man shall sanctify it.] By vowing it to be a whole burnt-offering, or a peace-offering unto the Lord; as Maimonides expounds it. The reason was, because no man could lawfully vow that which was not his own, as the firstlings were not; they being the Lord’s already, as it follows in the end of this verse. The same reason held (as Maimonides likewise observes) in all things belonging to God, as tentlis* Yet they devised ingeniously enough (as he speaks) a way to give these firstlings to God by a new obligation, and yet not offend, as they imagined, against this law; for they interpret these words of firstlings already brought forth: no man might sanctify such; but while they were in the womb, they might; saying, " I vow that lamb (suppose) which my ewe goes with to be a whole burnt-oflering to God, if it be a male:" but they could not vow it for a peace-offering, because no man could alter any thing for his own profit. Wliether it be ox, or sheep.] Under these two are comprehended all other kind of creatures, whose firstlings belonged to God.’ It is the Lord’s.] Num. iii. 13. viii. 17. For this reason no man was to presume to vow such things; it being a kind of mockery to make a present of that to another which was his owti before. (Sec Mr. Mede concerning this verse, p. 512.)

Leviticus 27:27

And if it be of an unclean beast. Most understand this of the firstling of an unclean beast. Against which there is this objection, that such things were before ordered to be redeemed, not with money, but with a lamb, (Exod. xiii. 13.) Therefore it seems more reasonable, to understand this of the firstlings of such an unclean beast, which a man hath redeemed, (ver. 13.) but afterward devoted to God; which he might do; for, after the redemption, it was become his own again. Tlien he shall redeem it according to thy estimation.] At the rate thou shalt set upon it. And shall add a fifth part of it thereto.] As was ordained, before in the like case, (ver. 11.) Or if it be not redeemed, then it shallbe sold according to thy estimation.] Any other man might buy it, at that rate’ the priest had set upon it; and the money was applied to holy uses.

Leviticus 27:28

Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord. Nothing that was devoted by that sort of vow, which was called cherem (as the word is here in the Hebrew), with a curse (as the word implies) upon themselves and others, if the thing was not employed according to their vow. Of all that he hath, both of man and beast, &c] All manner of things which might be sanctified to the Lord, by the forementioned simple vow, might be thus devoted and consecrated to him’ by a cherem, i. e. beasts and houses, and lands, and even men themselves, as far as they had power over them; for that is meant by those words, all that a man hath. (See the next verse.) Shall be sold or redeemed.] For this was the peculiar nature of this sort of vow; that the thing devoted by it should remain irreversibly and unalterably to the use unto * which it was devoted; for the person was accursed thatapplied it to any other use than that to which it was consecrated. Every devoted thing.] Of this kind. Is most holy to the Lord:] Other things devoted by a"’ simple vow were holy’, (ver. 9, 10, &c.) but these were most holy, so that none might touch them but the priests; and they were so strictly applied to the Divine service, that they could not be alienated, either by sale, or redemption, or commutation, or donation, or any other way. (Sec Mede, p.lGO.)

Leviticus 27:29

None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death. Some learned men have, from these words, asserted, that parents and masters among the Jews had such a power over their children and servants, that they might devote them to death, and so kill them; only the sentence of the priest was to concur, to whom every devoted thing fell as his portion. This is maintained by Ludov. Capellus, and confuted by Mr. Selden, lib. iv. dc Jure Nat. et Gent, juxta Disciplin. Hcbr. cap. G. where he judiciously observes, that this power would have too much entrenched upon the sixth commandment, if private men might have, at their pleasure, thus disposed of their children and slaves. And, in the next chapter, he explains the sense of this versfc; and proves, indeed, that there may be a cherem (minhaadam) of men, ox from among men, as well as of beasts; but this word hath four several senses among the Hebrews. First, it signifies the sacred gift itself, which was devoted to God, or to holy uses; and so it signifies in the foregoing ver. 28. Secondly, it signifies that which was devoted to perdition and utter destruction, either by the right of war, or upon the account of capital enmities: an example of which we have in Jericho, Josh. vi. 17. where the whole city was a cherem (devoted to destruction), as a punishment to their enemies; yet so, that the metals were made a cherem

Leviticus 27:30

All the tithe of the land, &c. is the Lord’s. By an ancient right before the law of Moses was delivered: for this is the first time we find any mention of a law about tithes: for which he giving no reason, it is a sign this was a pious usage all the world over; and therefore, being no new thing, but what all nations practised, the Jews could not think it burdensome to them; unless they would be wholly irreligious, and not acknowledge God to be the author and fountain of all the plenty and happiness they enjoyed: which was the intention of paying tithes; as the gentiles anciently did, and the Jews themselves, after victory over their enemies. For which there being no precept that appears, what can we think, but that natural reason, and the common custom of mankind (founded, perhaps, upon some direction given to our first parents from above), taught them to make this acknowledgment to God, as the author of their successes and safety, as well as of all plenty and prosperity. (See Gen. xiv. 19. xxviii.22.) Whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the trees.’] By the seed of the land is meant corn (as Rasi expounds it), and by the/rut’* of the trees, wine and oil. For thus they are reckoned up in other places, (Numb, xviii. 12.) where he gives the priestthe first-fruits of the wine, and ail, and wheat. And the like we read in Dcut xviii. 3/4. £*nd’in Dent. xiv. 23. they are commanded to eat before God, the tithe of their com, of their wine, and their oil Under which last ip comprehended the fruit of all other trees; as under the word setxl in this place seems to be comprehended all manner of herbs, as well as corn. For so the pharisees understood it; and our Saviour doth not disallow it. It is holy unto the Lord.] God, having declared his right in the tithe, in the beginning of tho verse, here commands that it be reserved to him as his portion: which he afterward conferred and settled upon the Levitcs by a special donation, (Numb, xviii. 21.)

Leviticus 27:31

And if a man will at all redeem aught of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. Mr. Selden, in his History of the Tithes, (chap, ii.) speaking of the second tithe, mentioned Dcut. xiv. 23. which was to be spent at Jerusalem (either in kind, or else, if it were too far thither, by turning it into money, and therewith to buy provision to make feasts), saith, that to this tithe do the Jeivs" apply that of Lev. xxvii. 30, 31. But for this he quotes^ only It. S. Jarchi: who, though he was a great Talmudist,- yet must not be thought to understand the sense of all their doctors. Aben Ezra, it is plain (to name no more), takes it otherwise; making Moses to speak of such a tithe as Abraham gave Melchisedec, and Jacob vowed to God. Lyra, I might add, a converted Jew, agrees with him. And there is great reason for it; no such thing as a second tithe being as yet ordained: and when they w r cre commanded,: and the changing of them into money allowed, there is not a word said of adding a fifth part, (see Deut. xiv. 24, 25.) which is sufficient to shew that Moses, in these two verses,. speaks of the first tithe, which was paid to the Levitcs, by a law made some time after this; which transferred the right that God h&dinthe tithe of the land unto them: which, if any man had a mind to redeem, and not pay it in kind, God allows him so to do; because the tithe was not more holy than things vowed to God, spoken of before: but then he was to do as in the case of such things, (ver. 13.) add a fifth part, over and above, to what such a portion of tithe was esteemed to be worth. The reason of which was, as Mr. Calvin well observes, not that the priest should get more than his due, by the man who desired to redeem his tithe, but that the man might not make a gain of the priest. For it is seldom seen that a husbandman desires to pay money rather than his tithe; unless he propound some considerable advantage to himself.

Leviticus 27:32

And concerning the tithe of the herd and of the flock. Every one knows, that by the tithe of the herd here is meant calves, and by the flock is to be understood lambs and kids, (Lev. i. 2.) For this was the tithe of those young ones that were brought forth that year; the same cattle not being again tithed every year. And he speaks of clean beasts, which were allowed in sacrifice; for* tithe was not paid of other beasts; but their first-born only was the Lord’s. This tithe was paid to God every year, as an cncharistical sacrifice, for all the benefits they received from God by their cattle. Even of whatsoever passeth under the rod.’) This expresses the manner of this tithing, which, if we will believe the Jews, was thus: they were all brought into a sheep-cot (saith Maimonides, in his Treatise of First-born, cap.vii.. in the beginning), in which there was but one gate or door, and that so narrow as to suffer no more than one to come out at once. Their dams being placed without, and the gate opened, the young ones were invited by their blcatings to

Leviticus 27:34

Tltese are the commandments which’ the Lord commanded Moses, for the children of Israel, in Mount Sinai. That is, these moreover were added to the foregoing commandments, before they removed from the wilderness of Mount Sinai. (See chap. xxv. 1. xxvi. ult.) For having, said before, in the. conclusion of the foregoing chapter, these are the statutes, and judgments, and laws which the Lord made, &c which respect all that preceded in this book, the commandments here spoken of can relate to nothing more but the laws delivered in this chapter about vows, and devoted things, and tithes. K. Which laws ought not to be. passed over, without serious consideration how far we may be concerned in them. And therefore to make what I have noted about them more useful to us in these days, I desire the reader to observe, that the very same pious inclinations have ever been in all good Christians, which Moses here supposes (in the former part of this chapter)-would be in the Jews, to devote some part of their goods, their houses, or lands to the service of God; which became sacred things, and were to be employe’dlo no other use but that. The very first Christians had so much of this spirit in them, that they sold all their possessions, and goods, and let every one that needed have. a share of them; (Acts ii. 45. iv. 35.) because the. whole number of believers attended to nothing else but the service of Christ; and the apostles also were to be furnished with means to go and propagate the gospel in all the world. Where, as soon as the Christian religion prevailed.in any place, immediately there were the like voluntary oblations made, in such a proportion, as served not only for the support of the service of God in that church, but helped to maintain the Christians at Jerusalem, who had been brought low by parting with their estates to further the first preaching of the gospel. This we find in a great number of places; but it may suffice to say, that the feasts of charity were maintained out of these oblations. By which it is apparent, that they took themselves to have the very same obligations upon them in this matter, which the Jews formerly had; and therefore it is no wonder that tithes came in time to be devoted for the mainte-. nance of God’s ministers. For it is senseless to imagine, that the gospel, which constrained them to give up themselves to God, should not constrain them, with the same freedom of mind, to give some of their goods (as Moses here supposes the Jews would do) for the maintenance of his service. And it is as unreasonable to think it did not move them tp give the ministers of God as honourable a maintenance, as had been allowed under the law of Moses. Which rcquirpd, besides the tenth here mentioned, another tithe of the remainder to be spent in sacrifices at Jerusalem, of which the Levites had their share, as I observed from Deut. xiv. 22. 28. To which, if we add the first-born, with all sip-offerings^ and the priest’s share of peace-offer? 3R. BK M