Section XI An Appendix: On Vows and Tithes

Leviticus 27:1-34

The consecration of persons and things to the Lord beyond the demands of the law were known in the OT as vows. Examples are seen in the actions of Hannah (I Sam. 1:11) and of Jephthah (Judg. 11:30-31). A singular vow (2) is better “a vowed offering” (Berk.). The provision here is for an estimation of the worth of the thing thus promised to God and a commutation of the vow according to value. In most cases cited here there is actually no change in ownership. There is, rather, a payment to the Lord of equivalent value. The evaluation was affected by the standards of the day as to age and sex. The seriousness with which a vow was viewed is seen in Deut. 23:21-23. But the humanitarian character of the Levitical legislation is also reflected in the protection written into the law for the poor (8).

If a beast (9) was vowed, the animal vowed had to be offered. No other could be substituted. To make a vow to offer it meant that it had become holy (10). It could not return to common life. If it was an unclean beast (11), the priest was to place a value (12) upon it and sell it. If the offerer wished to redeem (13) the unclean animal, he could do so by paying its value plus a fifth part (one-fifth). This same treatment was accorded in case a man vowed a house to the Lord (14-15).

In the matter of a field (16, land) a difference was made between that which was inherited and that which was bought. The meaning of 16 is clarified thus: “When a man sets apart to the Lord a field he owns, then your estimate of it shall be according to the amount of seed required [to sow it], ten bushels of barley means fifty silver dollars” (Berk.). Property was evaluated in terms of the year of jubile (16-24). Inherited land could be redeemed for the value plus one-fifth (19). Otherwise it became holy unto the Lord (21); i.e., it became the property of the priests; If the property was bought, it was valued in terms of the proximity of the Jubilee (23). The man would give according to its prospective value to him. In the year of the jubile (24) it would return to the original owner. Verse 25 is clarified thus, “All estimates shall be by sanctuary silver standards; the dollar shall equal ten dimes” (Berk.).

A firstling (26) of the clean animals could not be dedicated to the Lord, since it was His already (Exod. 13:2; 34:19). The firstling of an unclean beast (27) was valued and could be redeemed for value plus a fifth part (one-fifth). If it was not redeemed, it had to be sold, since it was unclean and could not be owned by a priest.

The meaning of the term devoted (cherem) is indicated in vv. 28-29. That which was devoted was set apart irrevocably for God. It was most holy unto the Lord and as such could not be sold or redeemed. It had to be destroyed from among men. The finality of consecration, from God's perspective, is indicated here. Consecration was neither to be done easily nor could it be casually undone. It was an irreversible process.

The title (30) likewise could be redeemed if value plus one-fifth (31) was offered. This was true both for the produce of the land and of the herd or the flock. Whatever passeth under the rod (32) is a picture of the shepherd or herdsman setting aside his tithe. Moffatt renders the verse, “The tithe of the herd or of the flock, every tenth animal counted by the herdsman, shall be sacred to the Eternal.” This tithe was not to be determined selfishly. A man was not to select either the good or bad (33) for God. If a man tried to adjust his tithe by trading animals, he was required to give both the animal offered and the one exchanged for it. Every tenth item was God's without debate.