Vows
The last chapter of Leviticus treats of vows, laying down Jehovah's directions respecting them, and comes in in a natural order. For since, in 25, 26, we have Jehovah's regulations about the land, and the provision for its restoration to its rightful owner, God's claim as Lord of the soil being maintained, we are now instructed as to the permission granted to Israel, who were like tenants at will, to consecrate to the Lord by a vow, either of men, animals, houses, or lands; in a word, of whatever property they possessed. Owing all, as they did, to Jehovah's goodness and mercy, and at times tasting in a special way of that goodness, it would be no wonder, if. moved by some marked favor shown to them, they vowed of what they possessed to God. Hence the directions concerning vows detailed in this chapter.
Who were free to bind themselves by a vow we learn in Num. 30, and the binding nature of such an engagement Deut. 23:2121When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. (Deuteronomy 23:21) sets forth. Here we learn what could be thus set apart for God. Now in two ways might living things be vowed to Him. They might be consecrated to Him in life, or they might under certain conditions be devoted to Him forever. This last kind of vow is here called cherem (Lev. 27:28,2928Notwithstanding 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. 29None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 27:28‑29)). Men, animals, and also fields could be thus devoted; for such no redemption was permitted (28). As regards men, such a vow was probably intended only to affect those who were the enemies of God (1 Kings 20:4242And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. (1 Kings 20:42)) and of Israel (Num. 21:33And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. (Numbers 21:3)), for their death was the only possible fulfillment of it. Of this the Canaanites are an example (Deut. 20:1717But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: (Deuteronomy 20:17)), as well as the Amorites under Sihon and Og, on the east of the Jordan (Deut. 3:6,76And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:6‑7)). Later on the Amalekites were ordered by God to be thus treated (1 Sam. 15:33Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:3)). So Samuel hewed Agag, their king, in pieces before the Lord, when Saul had in disobedience preserved him from death. To devote (charam) anything to God was a solemn and an irrevocable act, and this Jephthah learned to his cost; who, in accordance with his rash vow to offer up as a burnt offering whatsoever should come forth out of his house to meet him, if he returned victorious from the fight, felt himself constrained to sacrifice his daughter, who was his only child. His rash vow caused him to descend into the tomb childless, the bright object of that home having been immolated by the father's hand. Jephthah had opened his mouth unto the Lord, and he could not go back (Num. 30:22If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2)).
But a man might vow to the Lord one of the human race without such being devoted to destruction. In such a case, a money payment was to be made; " the person," we read, " shall be for the Lord by thy estimation " (Lev. 27:22Speak 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. (Leviticus 27:2)). What that estimation was to be the Lord proceeds to declare, and from it there was no appeal. For the estimation was based on two considerations which never could alter, viz., the age and the sex of the individual vowed to God. These questions settled, the estimation of the lawgiver, as here laid down, decided the amount of the money payment that was to be made (3-7), unless the one who made the vow was too poor to pay the stipulated sum. In that case, but in that case only, the priest was authorized to appraise the value of the individual, according to the ability of him who made the vow to meet the payment to be made. Poverty, then, could never be pleaded as an excuse to bar God's claim, or to shelter the one who made the vow from fulfilling it. No one was obliged to make a vow: " If thou forbear to vow, it shall be no sin unto thee " (Deut. 23:2222But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. (Deuteronomy 23:22)). But when once made the Lord would" require it. An engagement entered into with God could not be set aside at the dictation or caprice of man. The Lord would require the fulfillment of the contract; and since none but Levites could in person be engaged in the Lord's work in the Tabernacle, we can understand why, on the one hand, a payment in lieu of the personal service of one of the twelve tribes was to be demanded, and why, on the other hand, when Hannah vowed to lend her child Samuel unto the Lord as long as he lived, she brought him to Eli the priest in fulfillment of it, and no money payment was thought of in his stead.
Again, suppose a man desired to vow one of his animals to God, he was free to do it; but in accordance with the terms of this law, which made a marked difference between those beasts which could be offered in sacrifice, and those which as unclean could never be put on God's altar. If it was one of the former, the beast, the subject of the vow, was given to God, and no exchange was permitted. If the man did change it, then both it and the animal substituted Jehovah imperatively demanded. Should he vow an unclean beast to God, the priest valued it, and if the man wished to redeem it, he had that privilege reserved to him on payment of the price at which the priest valued it, with one-fifth part more in addition. Redemption was thus permitted when an unclean beast was the subject of the vow, but had no place when a person consecrated in that manner a clean beast to God. For this last no redemption was provided. In the case of one of the human racer payment in lieu of personal service was demanded.