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. 23:21 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. 27:28,29). 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 20:42) and of Israel (Num. 21:3), for their death was the only possible fulfillment of it. Of this the Canaanites are an example (Deut. 20:17), as well as the Amorites under Sihon and Og, on the east of the Jordan (Deut. 3:6,7). Later on the Amalekites were ordered by God to be thus treated (1 Sam. 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. 30:2).
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. 27:2). 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. 23:22). 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.