Before the election, they are ‘promises’.
We were told, “My word is my bond: for the 50th time no, its off the table”.
After the election, we are told, “They were ‘statements”.
We changed our position.
That was our policy then, this is now our policy.
It’s true of both sides of politics: in an earlier time we were told of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises.
Basically, it is the story of say one thing, do another when it is politically expedient, or when the politician feels secure in their position.
The opposition is weak, my side of politics has no where else to go.
I can get away with it.
And before we get too high upon our horses against our politicians, we must remember that they are, perhaps, our best and brightest”.
They were selected from us.
And we have each of us at some point have notkept our word.
Today we are looking at the Old Testament regulation of vows and tithing.
Leviticus Chapter 27 provides a gracious and humane, though costly, way of dealing with vows. It provides for the possibility of redeeming what has been vowed.
At its end, chapter 27 tells us how, and whether, the principle of redemption may apply to the tithe.
In the Book of Leviticus, the regulation of human vows seems to be a response to God’s vows in chapter 26.[1]
Verses 1 and 2 introduce the topic of ‘special vows’[2].
No-one in Israel was required to make these ‘special vows’: they were voluntary[3].
In fact, later in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, there are many arguments against, reasons why, and even commands prohibiting, the making of oaths and vows.[4]
But in the law of Moses, a member of God’s people might make what the NIV and NASB renders a “special vow” (כִּי יַפְלִא נֶדֶר--בְּעֶרְכְּךָ נְפָשֹׁת, לַיהוָה.).
The vow must be spoken, not merely thought.[5]
What is meant is a wonderful, extraordinary, unusual, difficult, costly vow (v. 1; cf. Lev 22:21)[6].
It is wondrous and unusual in a way akin to the Old Testament Nazirite vow, which God gave to individual Israelites of whatever tribe to express their especial devotion to Yahweh[7].
Let’s look at the good things the vow points to: the person believes in God, that he is sovereign and in control. They believe that God help them.
So a believer in God might make such a ‘special vow’ arising from difficulty, distress, or desperation.
We know this happens.
21 year old Martin Luther, off to study law, did it in a thunderstorm: “Help me St Anne, I will become a monk!” (PTC, Reformation Church History, 37)
Hudson Taylor, Missionary to Inland China.
He prayed that if God would break the power of sin and save him, he would go to China (Hudson Taylor’s Biography, 22).
And both men fulfilled their vow.
At one level, we all make promises to God, when we become Christians, are baptised, submit to God, and acknowledge his rule over us[8].
As believers in Jesus, we are not our own: we are bought at a price (1 Cor 6:9?).
And so it was for Israel: they all belonged to God as his servants, whom he brought out of Egypt.
God already has rights over us, and we have obligations, before we ever make a vows.
But the vows we are talking about are difficult, special promises, extraordinary and even hard.
Someone might promise to do something for God, or to give something to him.
They may do this because they are afraid or desperate.
They want God to save or help them.
Or just because he or she loves God and wants to serve God wholeheartedly, and express it in some way.
We have examples in the later Old Testament[9] for such vows.
A positive example of how a special vow can do good, is that of Hannah.
1 Samuel 1 gives us an insight into Hannah’s suffering that had occasioned her vow.
Her husband, Elkanah, a Levite, had married two women.
One of them was barren, but this was no accident: Yahweh had closed Hannah’s womb (v 6).
The one true God sends prosperity and adversity.
Elkanah’s other wife made Hannah’s life miserable over this, year after year (vv 6-7).
By the way, one of the words in Hebrew for distress, affliction, and adversity also means, ‘rival wife’[10], and is so used here.
The other wife is my trouble, distress, affliction.
This reminds us that every Scriptural example of bigamy and polygamy is an argument against it.
You don’t have to watch ‘Big Love’ or any of those voyeuristic Mormon shows to discover this.
Just read the scriptures.
In her deep anguish and with weeping, Hannah made a vow to Yahweh: If you give me a son, I will give him to the Lord (vv 10-11).
She falls pregnant, has her son, Samuel, and after he was weaned, she took him to the tabernacle to live and serve there (vv 22-28).
Hannah with joy kept her word, Elkanah was presumably happy with this[11], and together they serve as an example of a proper use that God’s people made of voluntary vows.
Eventually Yahweh gave Hannah other children, three sons and two daughters (1 Sam 2:21)—not explicitly in response to anything he had promised, but as a reminder that God is generous and kind.
God wants to give his people good things—he is not miserly or mean—though he also uses trouble and frustration to bring good things.
So we don’t have to bargain with God.
God loves to give us good things, more than we can ask or imagine.
The responses to suffering of Hannah and Elkanah as faithful Israelites is understandable.
God uses their faithfulness to bring about a wonderful turning point in salvation history.
The child Samuel becomes the wise, courageous, and faithful leader of God’s people, the last judge of Israel.
It was through Samuel that God chose his Messiah, David, whose greater son is our Lord Jesus.
People might vows for less good reasons: because of peer pressure, the desire to look good, or holy, or in the pursuit of power.
This was part of the disaster of what Ananias and Sapphira did in Acts chapter 5.
And in the heat of a desperate, unguarded moment, someone might make a rash, stupid, foolish vow.
It might involve making a promise or sacrifice that is abominable to God, that he hates.
God’s people might be influenced by the pagans around them, who offer child sacrifice.
God’s people might promise to do the same.
Or they might make a harsh and onerous vow that impacts on their family or household.
In the cold light of day, the person sensibly and rightly regrets their words.
He is unwilling to do or to give what he has promised.
They do not wish to fulfill the vow.
We have another example in the later Old Testament of what unquestionably was an idiotic and abominable vow.
That of Jephthah, in Judges chapter 11.
Jephthah, unjustly rejected by his family and clan, now has the opportunity to rule his people.
To do this, he must defeat the Ammonites.
God has raised him for this very purpose, for “the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah” (v 20).
Nevertheless, as he advanced against the Ammonites, Jephthah made a vow to the Lord.
He said, “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” (v 30-31).
I am sure you can see that this is a ridiculous and recklessly negligent vow.
Nothing in either testament suggests God would want such a burnt offering.
The one time God asked for it, of Abraham, he also stopped it (Genesis 22).
It was an extreme test for the chosen conduit of God’s blessing.
For God has reserved this sort of sacrifice, in the fullness of time, for himself, in the sacrifice of a beloved one and only Son.
The sequel to Jephthah’s vow, according to Murphy’s Law, is what we would expect:
Judges 11 verses 34 to 36:
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh my daughter, you have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow [lit opened my mouth] to the LORD that I cannot break [lit repent].” (NIV)
It is for this very miserable and wretched circumstance that Leviticus 27 exists.
It provides for what almost certainly became the norm regarding vows about persons.
Samuel is the exception that proves the rule.
Jephthah then can trot off to the priest and redeem his vow.
Leviticus 27 allows the Israelite to both fulfill ones promise to Yahweh and also keep the person, place, or thing that they had promised.
The principle remained that the vow uttered must be honoured.
But instead of the person or thing dedicated, God will accept in substitution, in place of the thing promised, the one making the vow can pay a redemption price.
It was said that the person could ‘redeem’ or ‘ransom’ that which was vowed[12]
To redeem the vow involves buying back the thing vowed at a price.
The redemption prices are relatively expensive.
They are set by the priests, who would normally be the beneficiaries of the vow.
Moreover, almost always a 20% premium was added.
It served as a penalty, or vow tax, an additional payment.
The 20% penalty probably served to either encourage the giving of the thing actually vowed, or to not make the vow in the first place.
This principle of redemption, of substitution of the thing vowed for an equivalent price, with the appropriate 20 percent penalty, applied to dedicated people, animals, and real estate.
Appropriately, the first situation given relates to a vow to give humans—either oneself or those under one’s power—to God, in verse 2.
We have seen an appropriate example of this in Hannah’s vow of Samuel and a stupid and sinful example of this in Jephthah’s vow of his daughter.
Concerning Samuel, Hannah could have redeemed Samuel but chose not to.
But instead of giving Samuel to the temple, she could have substituted an appropriate amount of money.
It would have been relatively inexpensive for Hannah to do this, as we will see.
Samuel’s age at the time meant his redemption price would have been one of the lowest for human redemptions.
Leviticus chapter 27 verses 3 to 8 sets out the redemption value of humans.
We might look down our noses at this valuation as reductionistic.
How can you determine what a person made in the image of God is worth?
Well, our society does this all the time, for various reasons.
We have long had so called ‘tables of maims’ in Workers Compensation.
This is an important part of the work of actuaries and insurance companies.
Businesses, Companies, Militaries, Sporting teams, all must work out what a person is worth.
And someone undoubtedly, for one purpose or another, have worked out what YOU are worth.
In Leviticus 27, we are not explicitly told the basis of the valuation, but we can infer that it is based on the value of that person’s labour to an agrarian subsistence agriculture economy.
It is the value of the person as a unit of production in sowing, reaping, tending livestock, and being hired help.
It does not reflect their intrinsic value.
All people have intrinsic value as bearers of God’s image but now were are talking about economic value in a particular situation.
The values of each class of people reflects their ability to contribute to the need to feed, shelter, and house them.
Will the person vowed be a net consumer and drain resources relative to their present productive ability.
Or will they be a net producer, providing for others as well as themselves.
The younger are still valuable—not the least in view of what they can do in the future—but their ability to contribute to present productivity is limited.
Those of working age are valued highest because of what they produce or provide in the present.
The older, for what they can still produce.
This rationale—which I have inferred but which is not made explicit anywhere—explains why men (males, הַזָּכָר) are valued at a higher rate than women of the same age.
But also why working-age women (females, -נְקֵבָה) between the ages of 20 to 60 are valued more highly than boys younger than five or old men over 60.
They are valued, we must presume, economically, according to the physical labour they can render in sowing, reaping, growing and gathering crops and running, watering, and protecting livestock, digging boreholes and wells, splitting and carrying firewood and rocks, and building, working and managing a property[13].
A catch all provision applies to the poor person who makes a vow related to a person.
In situations of poverty, the priest can make a determination based on what the person can afford (v 8).
This is the bottom line.
The priest can always simply take what the person can reasonably afford and the vow is fulfilled.
It is a merciful provision which still enables a person to keep a clear conscience, though they have made a hard vow.
The priest might make it a nominal sum in mercy and compassion, because the priest is bound to do only what the person can afford.
So Hannah and Elkanah could have redeemed the young Samuel comparatively cheaply.
They seem to have been reasonably wealthy, judging by the sacrifices they offered.
Even then, at the time of his delivery to Eli, Samuel could have been redeemed with 6 sheckles, a tenth of what it would have been if he was 20.
Hannah didn’t avail herself of this.
And this speaks to her dedication to Yahweh and her place in salvation history.
She stands with the line of extraordinarily faithful but barren women[14] who God used to pursue his saving purposes.
Samuel is yet another wondrous birth[15], with which the Scriptures are replete, and through whom hope, salvation redemption comes.
God was through Hannah’s vow doing something bigger and brighter than just giving a barren and miserable woman a child.
Jephthah also could have redeemed his stupid, rash vow[16].
It would have been relatively inexpensive and saved his grief.
But those of you who know that story know that Leviticus 27 only intensifies the tragedy of Jephthah’s disastrous and rash vow.
Let me read for you from Judges 11:36-40, where Jephthah’s unnamed, doomed daughter says:
36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”
38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. (NIV)
Why?
Why the needless and unnecessary slaughter?
Jephthah won’t avail himself of Leviticus 27 either because of ignorance or ambition.
Either Jephthah doesn’t know the bible and refuses to find out from the Priests what he might do.
In his ignorance he imports pagan beliefs and practices into his worship of Yahweh.
Or even worse or perhaps in addition, Jephthah believes his rapid rise to political prominence has come through backroom deals (he thinks) with God.
If he breaks this vow, Jephthah thinks he won’t have God’s muscle behind him.
This latter possibility is even sadder, because then, for Jephthah, if the choice is between getting the top job or saving his daughter, well, daughter must burn.
So Leviticus 27, rather than justifying some sort of devaluing of the vulnerable, of women, of children, of the elderly, the poor, Leviticus 27 protects and saves them from stupid decisions made by their family heads.
Ignorance of this passage led to fearful, ambitious, self-interested, pagan child sacrifice, which was not only needless and unnecessary, but an abomination before God.
Leviticus 27, then moves to animals that might be vowed, in verses 9 to 13.
Basically, the principle is that any animal vowed that can be sacrificed should be sacrificed.
A clean animal that could be sacrificed becomes holy through the vow, and thus must be given to God through the priests.
The vowed animal cannot be substituted: any attempt at substitution renders both the vowed animal and the attempted substitute holy to Yahweh (vv 9-10)[17].
Both animals are then forfeited to the priest.
This deters any substitution—unless of course the person’s intention is to double their offering.
But the tendency in these substitutions is to replace a good animal for a bad animal.
And this, of course, God rejects.
God deserves the best and is not to be given the scraps, especially if that’s what he has been promised.
And people need to keep their word.
If they promised a good animal, they give the good animal.
We might infer that no substitution was permissible in such a case because under the Old Covenant, God had given clean animals and their blood for sacrifice and forgiveness.
This type of clean animal was the substitute: it replaced the person who offered it.
God in his kindness had already made it a substitute.
So you cannot substitute the designated substitute.
God had given the life of such creatures and their blood to Israel so that they might make atonement for themselves selves on the altar (Lev 17:11).
The life of the animal atones for the life of the worshipper by substitution.
So the clean animal vowed must be given without substitution.
An “unclean” animal[18] might also have been the object of a vow.
Such an animal might be unclean per se, like a donkey, or perhaps turn out “unclean” for the purposes of worship, like a deformed lamb or calf.
Such an animal could be given to the priest as vowed or redeemed by the one who vowed it at the ransom price valued by the priest with the 20% loading added to it (vv 11-12)[19].
Such an animal could not be sacrificed.
Indeed, if a donkey, the priests could not touch such an animal without becoming unclean.
The priest might conceivably have retained it for use in their family or clan (perhaps by their servants) or sold it.
Someone might also vow real estate for the priests and their use.
And there are different types of real estate mentioned.
The priests and Levites have no ancestral land as do the other tribes.
Instead, they are scattered throughout Israel.
Yet they are their families must live somewhere.
Redeeming a house
The first real estate situation is in verses 14 and 15: some might own a house in a wall city (cf. Lev 25:29-30), for example, that is the object of a vow.
A house so vowed is valued by the priest (v 14). The redemption price is that plus a fifth (v 15)[20].
Redeeming one’s patrimony: ancestral arable land
The second is in verses 16 to 21, is if someone vowed their patrimony, arable land that produces a seasonal crop.
In ancient Israel, no one really owned the land.
In Leviticus 25:23, God said, “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”
Instead, the allocation of the land when Israel entered Canaan was a permanent allocation to the tribes, clans, and families of Israel.
It could not ultimately be alienated.
If land was sold, what was really being sold was the number of seasonal crops until the year of jubilee. when the land reverted back to the ancestral owner.
They ancestral holder could only sell the opportunity to plant and harvest the land for the seasons that remained until the next year of jubilee.
This occurs after a sabbath of sabbath years, on the fiftieth year.
Israel can sow and reap for six year, but the seventh is a sabbath year, when the land must lay fallow.
God promised that the land would produce enough for both the fallow year and the first year after it, while Israel waited while the crop they had planted grew.
Count off seven such sabbaths of years, and that gives 49 years.
The fiftieth year was the Jubilee year.
In that year, all ancestral property returned to its owners.
All debts were released.
Any Israelite who had sold himself into wage slavery would be set free.
It was a fresh start for everyone.
So a person by vow could dedicate their ancestral land to God, for the benefit of the priests.
What that meant was that he conveyed to the priests his own interest in the product of that land, the number of seasonal crops, up until the year of jubilee.
And I suppose the priests or their families could work the land to receive the income from it.
Or the priests could pay others to so work and manage it, until the jubilee.
But our passage says that the one who so vows his can redeem his vow at a price (vv 16-21).
The priests are given a way to calculate the value.
The value of arable land is not only determined by the number of years until the year of jubilee, but also by the amount of seed that can productively be planted upon it.
There are many factors that determine the value of arable land: access to and reliability of water, quality of soil, accessibility for sowing and reaping, topography, susceptibility to pests, existing vegetation and weeds, and so on.
But all this can be boiled down to one factor: how much seed could be usefully planted with the reasonable expectation to produce a crop.
The value of land, therefore, was how many donkey loads[21] of seed could be usefully sown.
And that was then converted to a corresponding amount of silver.
This was multiplied by the number of years till the jubilee.
And then the 20% redemption tax was added on top.
That is what the owner of the land had the right to redeem.
If they do not, or they sell that right to someone else, it will become irrevocably the priest’s property.
Redeeming purchased land
Since someone could sell the benefits of their land till the year of jubilee, someone who acquired that right could also vow it (v 22-24).[22]
They could dedicate the opportunity to plant and harvest that land for the seasons for which he has that right.
And if they vow and dedicate it, that person must pay an equivalent amount.
It would appear that they cannot give that right to the priest.
Because in the end, what they are giving the priest is a whole lot of work.
They must give the priests instead the value of that land.
It is not a redemption, so much as a payment of the equivalent value.
And there is no 20% tax upon it.
At the jubilee the field will return to the ancestral family who owns it.
The principle of generosity is to give things that are useful to the priests and Levites, but don’t give them extra work.
That is a good rule of thumb for us too.
When you are donating things to the charity bin or op shop or a clothing drive, it is not an opportunity to get rid of your rubbish.
You donating is not meant to save you tip fees.
Nor should you giving them work to do to distract them from their proper work under the cover of generosity.
Leviticus 27 sets up the normal situation that people would redeem their vows when they could.
That is easiest for the priest, otherwise they are just being given a bunch of work.
But other persons or things cannot be dedicated or redeemed (vv 26-29).
Firstborn animals
You cannot dedicate and therefore redeem something that already belongs to the Lord.
That is the case of the firstborn clean sacrificial animals (v 26)[23].
This will also be the case with the tithe.
The firstborn of unclean animals, such as a donkey or camel, may be redeemed by adding a fifth to its value.
If not, it may be sold and the money is presumably given to the priests (v 27)[24].
The priests would not want to personally use the unclean animal, at least when they are serving in the temple.
Unclean animals would make them unclean:
But they might sell it, or other members of their household such as servants might use it on their behalf.
That which is kherem: devoted to God and the Ban
Then there are the things that are devoted to Yahweh.
Again, you cannot vow to God what he already has.
And everything talked about here is already God’s.
So it cannot be redeemed.
There appears to be a distinction between those things that are vowed and thus dedicated to the LORD, and those things that are devoted irrevocably to the Lord (v 28).
The Hebrew term חֵרֶם (kherem) refers to things that are devoted permanently and irrevocably to Yahweh.
It is sometimes called the ban.
Verse 29 clearly relates this ban to those whom God has put under the sentence of death[25].
They are such as the inhabitants of Jericho and the plunder, except for Rahab and her family.
Those people in verse 29 do not appear to be the object of a human vow: rather, God himself has made the devotion to destruction.
Verse 28[26] also talks about Israelites devoting humans belonging to him to Yahweh. Perhaps these humans so devoted were examples like:
· a Canannite slave who was still worshipping idols.
· a family member who had committed an abomination according to the Torah;
· enemies or prisoners captured in holy war, where the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy them.
These are the examples that other Scriptures give of the humans devoted to destruction.
They cannot be redeemed.
We of course ask how that is fair.
It would be unjust for a modern nation state to do such a thing.
That would be genocide.
It would be wicked for an individual to do this in our era.
That would be criminal behaviour.
The theodicy, the answer is to be found in a true appreciation of our situation.
Such questions frequently assume our situation is better than it is.
Often a problem has to become worse before it gets better.
That is, God does wholesale genocide of humans now.
Do you think God does that?
No human alive today will be alive in a hundred and fifty years.
Every year around 63 million people die.
That’s over two Australias, gone, every year.
Globally, 174 thousand people die a day.
2 people die every second.
As world population increases so too does the number of deaths.
For every one born dies.
War does it more efficiently, but the result is the same.
And if you say, well the people who die are mostly old and frail and had nothing to live for, even if that were true, that just pushes the problem back.
Why do we become decrepit, and frail, and longing for death.
Isn’t it because of the brokenness and frustration to which God has committed our fallen world.
And God has done that because of our sin.
And his remedy for it is the new world he is making with the Lord Jesus as king.
If the world continues and Jesus doesn’t come back, God in his sovereign justice will have wiped all of us out.
That’s God’s decree on us, wiping out generation upon generation as he did in the desert with Moses.
Psalm 90 applies to us just as much as to Moses.
We just get used to it and forget we’re gonna die.
God has put eternity in our hearts, so it is a terrible thing, but we get numb and used to it.
God now does it in our time and place through all sorts of means: cancer, dementia, diabetes, sickness, car accidents, stroke, heart attacks.
But God sovereignly has decreed it, and so it comes to pass.
God can use whatever and whoever he wants to execute his just wrath.
Ihat in that period, God was preparing to use the theocracy of Israel.
They would be a kingdom of priests to bless and teach the world.
But God also in his grace and wisdom chose to use his redeemed people, Israel, to execute his justice.
The ultimate result is the same, though the means is different.
Billions of people wiped out.
No one gets out alive.
And we consider that normal.
But God happened at a particular point of human history to give Israel the privilege of being his agents of wrath.
He could have done it with angels, or fire, or anything he wants, or nothing.
He has promised not to destroy the whole earth by floodwaters again.
The last topic of our chapter is the tithe.
The tithe was commanded of Israel in the Torah, but it’s origins are more ancient.
Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of his plunder from defeating the five kings (Genesis 14:20).
Jacob promised a tithe to God if he would provide for him and bring him back to the land (Gen 28:22)[27].
But this pattern becomes codified in the torah.
The tithe, along with vows, becomes important ways that the Priests, Levites, and the tabernacle are supported.
The principle remains that you cannot substitute the substitute.
Tithes from the herd or flock cannot be redeemed or substituted (vv 32-33)[28].
But the tithe of crops and grain may be redeemed by adding a fifth to its value (v 30).
In that case, the priests and Levites receive a 20% profit on top of what was vowed.
Christians are committed to reality.
Our words matter, and silence is not always an option (cf. Prov 10:19).
You cannot really live life never making promises.
Life involves making and keeping our promises.
Our words matter. Jesus said that we will have to give an account for every careless word we have uttered.’
In the Old Testament, Israel were called to swear oaths.
Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 13 says: "Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name" (NIV cf. Deut 10:20)
There are many examples in the Old Testament where God’s people rightly and properly take oaths in God’s name.
Nehemiah, when he returned from exile, was dismayed with the intermarriage of Israelite men and women from the pagan cultures around them. So as an example of gentle pastoral counseling, Nehemiah pulls out their hair, and beats some of them, and calls down curses upon them. And in Nehemiah chapter 13 verse 25, he made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves" (NIV). Nehemiah is proud of making these disobedient Israelite men take an oath in Yahweh’s name.
Likewise, Abraham, without the hair pulling and beatings, made his servant swear a solemn oath by Yahweh, not to get a pagan wife for Isaac (Gen 24:1-4).
Jeremiah longs for a day when Israel will swear by Yahweh "in a truthful, just and righteous way" (Jer 4:1-2, 12:15-17 NIV). Isaiah looks forward to the day when "he who takes an oath in the land will swear by the God of truth" (Isaiah 65:16 NIV).
However, there are also many Scriptural examples of rash oath-taking (Lev 5:4; Jdgs 11:30-31; 1 Sam 14:24; 25:22; Mark 6:23; Acts 23:12). The experience of Peter that Matthew later narrates shows that there is repentance and forgiveness for these sins (Matt 26:74; John 21:15-19).
Moreover, God solemnly swears oaths at different points (Isa 45:23, 62:8; Amos 4:2-3; Luke 1:73, Acts 2:30; Heb 3:11, 18; 4:3; 6:13-17, 7:21), as does an elect angel (Rev 10:5-6). The commonly received teaching of keeping oaths made to God (Matt 5:33) is amply justified in the Torah (Lev 19:11-12; Num 30:2; Deut 23:21) and writings (Psalm 66:13-14; 76:11; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6),
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill the law (5:17). It wasn’t wrong or sinful for God’s people to swear their oaths in the name of Yahweh.
Matthew chapter 5 verse 33 again: "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord'” (NIV).
This is substantially a quote from Numbers chapter 30 verse 2: "When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said" (NIV).
A good rule, we might say. That’s a good rule to keep. If someone makes a vow, he must keep it.
But then the lawyers come in. And lawyers are good at finding loopholes. And they have a good look at the law. And they say, "Look, Numbers 30 verse 2 says vows to the LORD. What if the person doesn’t make a vow to the LORD? What if it is a vow on something else? What if the person swears not on the name of the LORD but on a piece of temple furniture? Is he still bound?" The situation Jesus confronts is illustrated by Jesus’ criticisms of the religious leaders in Matthew chapter 23 verses 16 to 23:
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-23 NIV)
You cannot have weasel words with God.
You can’t play stupid word games with the LORD.
Stop the ‘Swear on the altar, swear on the temple’.
You are just using it to mislead and trick people. Mean what you say, say what you mean, and keep your word. Tell the truth.
Matthew chapter 5 verse 37: "Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes', and your `No', `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (NIV).
Say what you mean and mean what you say. No, I can’t make it. No I can’t do it. Yes, I will do that. And then keep our word, even if it hurts. We don’t want our community or our families to say we can’t be trusted, do we? We don’t want to have ‘core’ promises and ‘non-core promises’. In part, that means realizing what promises we cannot make. And those things we do agree to, we need to keep.
So James, the Lord’s half brother, likewise urges a similar ethic. James chapter 5 verse 12: "Above all, my brothers, do not swear – not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No", no, or you will be condemned" (NIV).
Now, there is another issue we need to consider. What if we are required to make oaths by the secular government, courts or other authorities? Should the Christian and the atheist do the same thing, and make an affirmation, not an oath to God? After all, Jesus and James both say, ‘Do not swear’.
Now I have sworn oaths that were required of me to become an Anglican clergyman. For example, I swore that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Archbishop of Sydney in all things lawful and honest. So help me God! And there are other promises and oaths I made, to be bound by the Ordinances of the Synod, to use the Authorised Prayer Book services and agree to the theology of the prayer book and the 39 articles, to not wear the chasuble but wear the surplice, unless I am given relief (which our AGM kindly did for me), to administer the bread and wine separately at communion. (http://www.sds.asn.au/site/101066.asp). All of these things required oaths, swearing and solemn declarations.
I think all these oaths are permissible. We are different to atheists, who cannot swear by anything greater than themselves. We believe in a God who is infinitely greater than us, who will hold us accountable for every thought, word and deed, for every careless and thoughtless word uttered.
And so it is right and proper, when required by lawful authority, to swear an oath before the God of the bible who is there, and who hears and listens and watches, and will bring us into judgment. And so we also pray, ‘So help me God’, so that we recognize that we are dependent on God to help us keep to our word. Because we need God’s help to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and not give way to fear.
The whole matter is admirably summed up in Article 39, at the back of our White Prayer Books (which, of course, I have solemnly promised that I believe to be true).
Article XXXIX Of a Christian Man’s Oath
As we confess that vain and rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James His Apostle; so we judge that Christian religion does not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requires, in a cause of faith or charity, so it be done, according to the prophet’s teaching, in justice, judgment and truth.
When required by lawful authority, we swear by the God we believe in. Otherwise, we do not make oaths, but be people of our word.
[1] In the previous chapter, God lays his promised future blessing and cursing of his people.
Israel will be blessed if they keep God’ s covenant and all his commands.
They will be cursed if they disobey.
[2] “The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow”…
[3] Deuteronomy 23:21-23 does not require anyone to vow but requires the payment of vows: “21 If you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the Lord your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. 23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the Lord your God with your own mouth” (NIV).
[4] Vows are a well-known, specific human tendency, and perhaps even weakness. Qoheleth advises, “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it, because He takes no pleasure in fools. Fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it” (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5). Jesus appears to go further: “But I tell you not to swear at all: not by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King… Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:34-37).
[5] If only John Bunyan and Patrick of Ireland realised that vows must be uttered and not merely thought, they may have been saved many years of misery, for it was probably a thought that they had thought that tormented them for years. We must not hook into all our thoughts, things that cross our minds, or think that they define us. We can simply stand aside and notice them, be interested, and then move on, not bound to them. We are not our thoughts, anymore than we are the birds that happen to fly over our heads: we can stand above our thoughts, and assess them, and reject or accept them, and then get on with life the way God wants us to.
[6] The Hebrew פָּלָא is the main verb that denotes something that is wonderful, extraordinary, or beyond human capacity. The BDB gives the Piel Infinitive construct לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר as to make a special votive offering (Lev 22:21; Num 15:3, 8) and defines the Hiphil as to do a hard or difficult thing, or in this case, to make a hard vow (Lev 27:2; Num 6:2).
Leviticus 22:21
וְאִ֗ישׁ כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֤יב זֶֽבַח־שְׁלָמִים֙ לַיהוָ֔ה
And a man, if he approaches with a sacrifices of peace offerings to Yahweh
לְפַלֵּא־נֶ֙דֶר֙ א֣וֹ לִנְדָבָ֔ה בַּבָּקָ֖ר א֣וֹ בַצֹּ֑אן
to ‘fulfill a hard vow’ [idiom? piel infin cs of פָּלָא ] or for a freewill offering from the herd or flock
תָּמִ֤ים יִֽהְיֶה֙ לְרָצ֔וֹן כָּל־מ֖וּם לֹ֥א יִהְיֶה־בּֽוֹ׃
It shall be perfect for acceptance; there shall not be any blemish in it.
Numbers 15:3, 8 lists a לְפַלֵּא־נֶ֥דֶר as one of the reasons for bringing a burnt offering. The NIV, NASB takes it as an idiom and renders it as a ‘special vow’. ESV, CSB renders it ‘to fulfill a vow’ (substantially similar is the AV, RV, ASV, NETBible). Mechon-mamre renders the phrase, “in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered”.
[7] The Nazirite vow (Numbers 6) was also a ‘special vow’ (Num 6:2-3). It appears to be a different sort of vow—one that by its nature requires consideration. It appears to have afforded an opportunity of both generosity and devotion to the LORD. No specific mention is made of the ability to pay a redemption price for the Nazrite vow in Leviticus 27, but neither is it explicitly excluded therein.
[8] These sorts of promises—entering into a personal relationship with God—seem to be more like the one that Jacob made to God (Genesis 28:20-22), rather than a ‘special vow’.
[9] While there is some similarity between the later regulation and Jacob’s vow (and commentators frequently include it in the list of scriptural examples of vows), it seems to me that Jacob’s vow serves as only a limited paradigm for the later practice and for enlightening the Mosaic provisions. In Genesis 28:20-22, Jacob “vowed a vow” (v 20: וַיִּדַּ֥ר יַעֲקֹ֖ב נֶ֣דֶר לֵאמֹ֑ר) in fear after having had a dream of Yahweh standing above a stairway to heaven. In that dream, God promised unilaterally to give Jacob the patriarchal promise of land, people, and blessing overflowing to the world (28:10-15), and to bring him back to this land. In response, Jacob made a conditional vow (vv 20-22), saying (presumably out loud and vocalised, not merely thought in his head), in substance: If God would show himself to be faithful to Jacob, to be with him and watch over him on his journey, giving food and clothing, so that Jacob returns to his father’s household, then, Jacob said, “Yahweh will be my God and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth (of humans as well as animals?).”
The first thing to say is that the conditional nature of this vow is something less than mature faith we would expect of believers in both testaments, albeit it is a movement in the right direction as we follow the narrative of Jacob’s exploits. Jacob seems to be moving into a relationship of having Yahweh as his God, whereas prior to this God was perhaps only the God of his fathers.
Commentators debate as to where the protasis in Jacob’s vow stops and apodosis starts. While occasionally the protasis is said to include the proposition, “Yahweh will be my God” (Rashi among the Rabbis), most appear to include this in the apodosis (as does Ramban among the Rabbis: Genesis 28:20-22 - Jacob’s Vow - Thinking Torah), and we will proceed on that basis, which modern English translations also follow.
In reference to the second and third vows in the apodosis, God didn’t ask Jacob for a house: nor did he later ask David for one: these promises and intentions arise from the hearts of the worshipper. Nevertheless, God gathers up the vow and uses it in his purposes and salvation history. Under God’s guidance through further revelation, Jacob later returned to Bethel, asking his family to rid themselves of their idols, and offered sacrifices to Yahweh there (Genesis 35:1-15). Some Rabbinic commentators postulate that Jacob’s delay in fulfilling his vow led to a number of intervening tragedies in his life, particularly the ravishing of Dinah and the idolatry of his family. However, we have no explicit warrant for such inferences.
Jacob’s promise of a tenth reflects Abraham’s gift to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20) and seems to prefigure the later Mosaic tithe which supported the Aaronic priests and Levites. Both Abraham and Jacob thus give a precedent to tithing that precedes Moses. It is unclear how Jacob would give this gift to Yahweh: would he sacrifice a tenth of his livestock to Yahweh? Would he use the tenth to build a structure at Bethel? He at least built an altar. Is it a promise Jacob makes on behalf of his issue to bind them, and is it fulfilled in the subsequent tithing practice?
As to Bethel, Amos 4:4 might mean that Bethel was the place to which Israel brought the Tithe, acknowledging Jacob’s vow to God, the later custom suggesting that Jacob by his vow was binding his heirs. God didn’t ask or require this of Jacob, but once given, mediated through the Mosaic law, it shaped God’s dealings with his people. Perhaps the shape of Jacob’s vow prefigured both the place God would dwell and the tithe, which God would later institute.
On the majority modern reckoning, the first vow (v 21) appears to put God on probation, with a view to Jacob entering into a relationship with Yahweh, if Yahweh fulfills the condition that Jacob sets. It is something less than what we would expect of believers under either testament. Many commentators play down the immature, unformed, or lack of faith that it exhibits.
Some suggest (e.g., Abarbanel: Genesis 28:20-22 - Jacob’s Vow - Thinking Torah) that rather than doubting God being his God, Jacob doubts whether the dream is actually and in reality a true revelation from God, and so the test is not of God so much as whether the dream is a legitimate source of revelation from God. This is possible but seems overly subtle and unlikely. There is no indication of any such doubt in the intervening narrative between dream and vow: instead, “Jacob thought, ‘Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.’ He was afraid and said, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven.’” This does not suggest of doubt and an intention to test whether the dream is a valid revelation from God: Jacob seems to have progressed from accepting the legitimacy of the dream-revelation to what are appropriate and natural responses to having drawn (or been drawn) near to the living God.
The narrative of Jacob’s personal fulfillment of his vow is in Genesis 35:1-15. Jacob departs under guidance from another revelation. There Jacob offered drink offering on an altar and oil and set up a pillar. Perhaps this stands for being a ‘house’. Perhaps it involved more than just a pillar but also a house there.
[10] The feminine noun tsarah, צָרָה, used 73 times in the OT, almost always means ‘distress, trouble, affliction, adversity, anguish’, but has a second meaning, used only once, of ‘rival wife’, where it describes Hannah’s rival (1 Samuel 1:6): BDB. It is derived from the masculine adjective צַר meaning narrow, tight. As a noun, the masculine צַר means distress, difficulty, or adversary, foe. It is parallel to אוֺיֵב (Esther 7:6, אִ֚ישׁ צַ֣ר וְאוֹיֵ֔ב).
[11] Numbers 30:6-8: "If a woman marries while under a vow or rash promise by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it but says nothing to her on the day he hears of it, then her vows and the pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her husband prohibits her when he hears of it, he nullifies the vow that binds her or the rash promise by which she has bound herself, and the LORD will release her." This suggests that the husband has veto authority over the wife’s decision to vow, and acts as a safeguard in the case of rash vows.
[12] The language of redemption is the two verbs, goel and padah. The lexemes appear to be interchangeable: וְאִם-גָּאֹל, יִגְאָלֶנָּה: and if he certainly redeem: v 13; unclean animals, וּפָדָה, and he ransoms, וְאִם-לֹא יִגָּאֵל: v 27).
[13] MALE: 1 month to 5 years: 5 shekels (v 6); 5-20 years: 20 shekels (v 5); 20-60 years: 50 silver shekels (v 3); Over 60: 15 shekels (v 7). FEMALE: 1 month to 5 years: 3 shekels (v 6); 5-20 years: 10 shekels (v 5); 20-60: 30 shekels (v 4); Over 60: 10 shekels (v 7).
[14] The matriarchs Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, the wife of Manoah, Ruth and Naomi, and Elizabeth.
[15] The births of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samson, Obed, John the Baptist, and especially Jesus.
[16] This is also the opinion of the monumental article by a Catholic author, also citing ancient Jewish texts, at Jephthah’s Vow (Judges 11): Catholic Interpretation Explained.
[17] 9 If what they vowed is an animal that is acceptable as an offering to the Lord, such an animal given to the Lord becomes holy. 10 They must not exchange it or substitute a good one for a bad one, or a bad one for a good one; if they should substitute one animal for another, both it and the substitute become holy. (NIV)
[18] The question arises, what is the animal that is ‘unclean’ according to Leviticus 27:11. Is it only the ‘unclean’ out of the small group of animals that can otherwise be sacrificed,but for the defect in the animal that precludes it’s sacrifice? Does it include animals that cannot be sacrificed but are clean according to Leviticus chapter 11?
There is a class of animals that are clean but not permissible for sacrifice. Example would be ruminants not specifically mentioned as applicable for sacrifice such as the deer or giraffe. Likewise, fish with scales and fins are clean but not apt for sacrifice.
A bull, sheep or goat (normally apt for sacrifice) but with a defect also might still be clean. Did the defect render that animal unclean, or like those above, ‘fish’, clean but not fit for sacrifice? I am unsure. A number of commentators say that for this purpose—that is, for sacrifice—such animals were considered ‘unclean’. In which case, such animals would be treated according to verses 11 and 12.
Presumably, an animal that fits the criteria of 27:11 as ‘unclean’ (טָמֵא) would be one declared ‘unclean’ (טָמֵ֥א) in Leviticus 11:4-8, 26-31, such as the camel or donkey. A camel was specifically nominated to be unclean in that it does not have a cloven hoof even though it is a ruminant which chews the cud. Yet no doubt it still had a commercial value, as camels do today. Similarly, a donkey is an example of an animal, though outside the description of clean, were frequently found among God’s people ancient Israel at different times. They could bear burdens and be put to other work. But equine animals (donkeys, horses, and mules) were unclean according to Leviticus 11. Though not specifically named, equines are herbivores, but neither have a divided hoof (they have a single hoof), nor are they ruminants (that is, they do not chew the cud. Chewing the cud involves having four stomachs and regurgitating partially chewed grass to be rechewed). A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and female horse. Horses were discouraged in Israel not because they were ritually unclean, but because of their military value. As weapons of war people would trust in horses, and not Yahweh.
[19] Leviticus 27:11-13: 11 If what they vowed is a ceremonially unclean animal—one that is not acceptable as an offering to the Lord—the animal must be presented to the priest, 12 who will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, that is what it will be. 13 If the owner wishes to redeem the animal, a fifth must be added to its value. (NIV)
[20] Leviticus 27:14-15: 14 “‘If anyone dedicates their house as something holy to the Lord, the priest will judge its quality as good or bad. Whatever value the priest then sets, so it will remain. 15 If the one who dedicates their house wishes to redeem it, they must add a fifth to its value, and the house will again become theirs. (NIV)
[21] The Hebrew word חמר, transliterated chômer, comes from the Hebrew “chamor”, meaning “donkey” or “ass”. Donkeys were the primary means of haulage. This was the amount of weight a donkey could carry on his back, one donkey-load of grain. The chômer as a measure of volume was what a cylinder 1 cubit tall and 1 cubit in diameter could hold. The largest volume of both dry and wet measure in the Bible, it was equivalent to about explains how we may still be able to cash in 57.5 US gallons (220 litres), making it slightly larger than the common 55 US-gallon drum (208 litres). 1 Chromer ofwaterwould weigh about : Chomer - Bible Wiki. Australians are used to the 44 gallon drum (holding 205 litres). Conversion to modern measures is complicated because the Australian gallon, historically based on the British imperial system, is 4.54609 litres, whereas the US gallon is 3.785411784 litres. This makes the imperial gallon roughly 20% larger than the US gallon. Oil barrels are 42 US gallons (159 liters). Standard American whiskey barrel holds approximately 53 US gallons (200 liters). 10 Ephahs made a chomer, making the epher equivalent to a 20 litre jerry can or two 10 litre household buckets.
[22] 22 If anyone dedicates to the Lord a field they have bought, which is not part of their family land, 23 the priest will determine its value up to the Year of Jubilee, and the owner must pay its value on that day as something holy to the Lord. 24 In the Year of Jubilee the field will revert to the person from whom it was bought, the one whose land it was. (NIV)
[23] 26No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the Lord’s. (NIV)
[24] 27 If it is one of the unclean animals, it may be bought back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If it is not redeemed, it is to be sold at its set value. (NIV)
[25] 29 “‘No person devoted to destruction[l] [permanently dedicated from among men] may be ransomed; they are to be put to death. (NIV)
כָּל-חֵרֶם, אֲשֶׁר יָחֳרַם מִן-הָאָדָם—
לֹא יִפָּדֶה: מוֹת, יוּמָת.
[26] Albert Barnes’ view of the kherem in Leviticus 27:28 is attractive but seems to give inadequate weight to the text: “Therefore the application of the word חרם chērem to man is made exclusively in reference to one rightly doomed to death and, in that sense alone, given up to Yahweh. The man who, in a right spirit, either carries out a sentence of just doom on an offender, or who, with a single eye to duty, slays an enemy in battle, must regard himself as God’s servant rendering up a life to the claim of the divine justice (compare Romans 13:4). It was in this way that Israel was required to destroy the Canaanites at Hormah (Numbers 21:2; compare Deuteronomy 13:12), and that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord 1 Samuel 15:33. In all such instances, a moral obligation rests upon him whose office it is to take the life: he has to look upon the object of his stroke as under a ban to the Lord (compare Deuteronomy 20:4; Galatians 3:13). Therefore, there can be neither redemption nor commutation. It is evident that the righteousness of this law is not involved in the sin of rash or foolish vows, such as Saul’s 1 Samuel 14:24 or Jephthah’s Judges 11:30.” 28 “‘But nothing that a person owns and devotes[k] to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord.
אַךְ-כָּל-חֵרֶם אֲשֶׁר יַחֲרִם אִישׁ לַיהוָה מִכָּל-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ, מֵאָדָם וּבְהֵמָה וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ—
לֹא יִמָּכֵר, וְלֹא יִגָּאֵל: כָּל-חֵרֶם, קֹדֶשׁ-קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַיהוָה.
[27] It is unclear how Jacob would have fulfilled the tithe: perhaps through burnt offerings; perhaps through building works at Bethel.
[28] Leviticus 27:30-33: 30 “‘A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. 31 Whoever would redeem any of their tithe must add a fifth of the value to it. 32 Every tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod—will be holy to the Lord. 33 No one may pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If anyone does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.’” 34 These are the commands the Lord gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites. (NIV)
Leviticus 27: Redeeming Vows and the Thithe
Before the election, they are ‘promises’.
We were told, “My word is my bond: for the 50th time no, it’s off the table”.
After the election, we are told, “They were ‘statements”.
We changed our position.
That was our policy then, this is now our policy.
It’s true of both sides of politics: in an earlier time we were given the distinction of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises.
Non-core, you can break, core, you can’t.
Basically, say one thing, do another when it is politically expedient.
The opposition is weak, my side of politics has no where else to go.
I can get away with going against my election ‘statements’.
Yet it would be easy to criticize politicians without recognizing the same tendency in ourselves. Politicians are drawn from ordinary people, and all of us have, at times, failed to keep our word. Human beings frequently promise more than they deliver.
Leviticus 27 concerns vows—special promises made to God.
Today we are looking at the Old Testament regulation of vows and tithing.
Leviticus Chapter 27 provides a gracious and humane, though costly, way of dealing with vows.
It provides for the possibility of redeeming what has been vowed. through the payment of an equivalent value.
At its end, chapter 27 tells us how, and whether, the principle of redemption may apply to the tithe.
These “special vows” were not required by God but were entirely voluntary.
They were extraordinary promises made in response to often distressing circumstances.
The language suggests something unusual, difficult, costly, or remarkable.
People often make vows during times of crisis.
Martin Luther famously vowed to become a monk during a thunderstorm if he survived.
Hudson Taylor promised to serve as a missionary in China if God would save him from the power of sin.
Both men fulfilled their vows.
In one sense, all Christians make promises to God when they acknowledge Christ’s lordship.
Believers belong to God because they have been bought at a price.
Similarly, Israel already belonged to God as the people he redeemed from Egypt.
Nevertheless, special vows went beyond ordinary covenant obligations.
They were voluntary commitments involving unusual sacrifice or devotion.
Some vows arose from sincere love for God, while others were motivated by fear, desperation, social pressure, pride, or the desire for recognition.
A positive example of how a special vow can do good, is that of Hannah.
In 1 Samuel 1, Hannah suffered deeply because she was barren.
Her husband’s other wife mocked her relentlessly.
God had closed her womb.
In her deep anguish and with weeping, Hannah made a vow to Yahweh:
If you give me a son, I will give him to the Lord (vv 10-11).
God answered her prayer, and Hannah faithfully fulfilled her promise.
She weaned him and brought Samuel to Eli to serve at the tabernacle.
God subsequently blessed Hannah with additional children, not because he was obligated to do so, but because he is generous and gracious.
Importantly, God was accomplishing something far greater than simply giving Hannah a child. Through Samuel, God brought a major turning point in salvation history.
Samuel became the last judge, leader, and prophet:
Samuel was the one who anointed David, the forefather of our Lord Jesus Christ the Messiah.
We have another example in the later Old Testament of what unquestionably was an idiotic and abominable vow.
That of Jephthah, in Judges chapter 11.
Let me tell you about that.
Jephthah was the long rejected bastard of his family.
But he was, from necessity, a good fighter.
His family went cap in hand to have him fight for them.
But Jephthah had a price: he needed to become the head of the clan.
They were in a tight spot, so the Gileadites agreed.
And before he went into battle with the Ammonites, Jephthah made a vowed.
if God granted victory, he would offer as a burnt offering whatever first emerged from his house to greet him upon his return.
I am sure you can see that this is a ridiculous and recklessly negligent vow.
Nothing in either testament suggests God would want such a burnt offering.
The one time God asked for it, of Abraham, he also stopped it (Genesis 22).
It was an extreme test for the chosen conduit of God’s blessing.
For God has reserved this sort of sacrifice, in the fullness of time, for himself, in the sacrifice of a beloved one and only Son.
The sequel to Jephthah’s vow, according to Murphy’s Law, is what we would expect:
Let me read Judges 11 verses 34 to 36:
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh my daughter, you have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow [lit opened my mouth] to the LORD that I cannot break [lit repent].” (NIV)
It is for this very miserable and wretched circumstance that Leviticus 27 exists.
It provides for what almost certainly became the norm regarding vows about persons.
Samuel was the exception that proves the rule.
Jephthah then can trot off to the priest and redeem his vow.
Leviticus 27 allows the Israelite to both fulfill ones promise to Yahweh and also keep the person, place, or thing that they had promised, at least in most cases.
The principle remained that the vow uttered must be honoured.
But instead of the person or thing dedicated, God will accept in substitution, in place of the thing promised, the one making the vow can pay a redemption price.
It was said that the person could ‘redeem’ or ‘ransom’ that which was vowed
To redeem the vow involves buying back the thing vowed at a price.
The first category addressed in Leviticus 27 concerns vows involving people.
The chapter assigns redemption values according to age and sex.
The valuations reflect economic productivity within an ancient agricultural society.
We value people this way to: that’s what actuaries and governments and insurance companies do.
We have ‘Tables of Maims’, that work out what a little finger is worth, or a foot, or an arm.
And in our chapter, God has given a valuation of the person’s productive labour value, not their intrinsic worth.
Working-age adults are valued most highly because they contribute the greatest labour.
Young children and the elderly receive lower valuations because they contribute less directly to agricultural production.
The distinctions between male and female valuations likewise reflect assumptions about physical labour in an agrarian economy rather than differences in human dignity.
But in verse 8, the priest can simply take what the person can reasonably afford, and then the vow is fulfilled.
Can you see this is a merciful provision?
God enables a person to keep a clear conscience though they have made a hard vow which cannot be paid.
The priest might make it a nominal sum in mercy and compassion, because the priest is bound to do only what the person can afford.
So Hannah and Elkanah could have redeemed the young Samuel comparatively cheaply.
They seem to have been reasonably wealthy, judging by the sacrifices they offered.
Hannah didn’t avail herself of this.
She stands with the line of extraordinarily faithful but barren women who God used to pursue his saving purposes.
Samuel is yet another wondrous birth through whom hope, salvation redemption comes.
God was through Hannah’s vow doing something bigger and brighter than just giving a barren and miserable woman a child.
Jephthah also could have redeemed his stupid, rash vow.
It would have been relatively inexpensive and saved him grief.
But those of you who know that story know that Leviticus 27 only intensifies the tragedy of Jephthah’s disastrous and rash vow.
Either Jephthah doesn’t know the bible and refuses to find out from the Priests what he might do.
In his ignorance he imports pagan beliefs and practices into his worship of Yahweh and slaughters his daughter as a whole burnt offering.
So Leviticus 27, rather than justifying some sort of devaluing of the vulnerable, of women, of children, of the elderly, the poor, protects and saves them from stupid decisions made by their family heads.
Ignorance of or refusal to use this passage led to fearful, ambitious, self-interested, pagan child sacrifice, which was not only needless and unnecessary, but an abomination before God.
Leviticus 27 then addresses animals dedicated by vow.
If a clean animal suitable for sacrifice is vowed, it must be given to God.
No substitution is allowed.
If someone attempts to exchange it for another animal, both animals become holy and belong to the Lord.
This regulation discourages attempts to replace a valuable animal with an inferior one.
God deserves the best, especially when that is what has been promised.
We might infer a theological reason.
Under the sacrificial system, clean animals already functioned as substitutes for sinners.
The lives of certain farm animals were given by God for atonement.
Therefore, one cannot substitute the substitute.
Unclean animals, however, cannot be sacrificed.
Such animals may be valued by the priest and redeemed by paying their assessed value plus an additional twenty percent.
Alternatively, they may be retained or sold by the priests.
Leviticus 27 also regulates vows involving real estate.
A person may dedicate a house in a walled city to the Lord. The priest assesses its value, and the owner may redeem it by paying that amount plus twenty percent.
The situation becomes more complex with ancestral agricultural land—technically, a patrimony.
In Ancient Israel, the land ultimately belonged to God.
Families possessed hereditary rights to particular portions of land, but those rights could never be permanently alienated.
At the Year of Jubilee, all ancestral land returned to its original family.
Therefore, when someone vowed land, what was really being dedicated was the right to benefit from its produce until the next Jubilee.
The value of such land was calculated according to its productive capacity and the number of years remaining until Jubilee.
If the owner wished to redeem it, the redemption price included an additional twenty percent.
Someone who had acquired temporary rights to another family’s land could also dedicate those rights.
In this case, the equivalent value had to be paid,
They could dedicate the opportunity to plant and harvest that land for the seasons for which he has that right.
And if they vow and dedicate it, that person must pay an equivalent amount.
Interestingly, they cannot give that right to the priest.
Because in the end, what they are giving the priest is a whole lot of work.
So instead, they must give the priests instead the equivalent value of that land in money.
It is not a redemption, so much as a payment of equivalent value.
There is no 20% tax upon it.
At the jubilee the field will return to the ancestral family who owns it.
There is a principle of generosity here.
Israel should give things that are useful to the priests and Levites, but don’t give them extra work.
That is a good rule of thumb for us too.
When you are donating things to the charity bin or op shop or the clothing drive, which we are doing at the moment, it is not an opportunity to get rid of your rubbish.
You donating is not meant to save you tip fees.
Nor should you give the charity work to do to distract them from their proper work under the cover of generosity.
Give them useful things, things that promote their work.
Not everything can be dedicated and redeemed.
You cannot give God things he already has.
Firstborn animals already belong to God.
Since they are already his, they cannot be specially vowed and redeemed.
Further, things devoted irrevocably to God under the ban cannot be redeemed:
they already belong completely to God.
This category includes people or property devoted to destruction under divine judgment.
An example is the inhabitants of Jericho and the plunder, except for Rahab and her family.
Those people in verse 29 do not appear to be the object of a human vow: rather, God himself has made the devotion to destruction.
We of course ask how that is fair.
It would be unjust for a modern nation state to do such a thing.
That would be genocide.
It would be wicked for an individual to do this in our era.
That would be criminal behaviour.
The theodicy, the answer is to be found in a true appreciation of our situation.
Such questions frequently assume our situation is better than it is.
Often a problem has to become worse before it gets better.
All human beings already live under God’s judgment because of sin.
Death comes to everyone.
Now God exercises judgment continually through ordinary means such as disease, aging, accidents, and natural death.
No human alive today will be alive in a hundred and fifty years.
Every year around 63 million people die.
That’s over two Australias, gone, every year.
Globally, 174 thousand people die a day.
2 people die every second.
For every one born dies.
War does it more efficiently, but the result is the same.
And if you say, well the people who die are mostly old and frail and had nothing to live for, even if that were true, that just pushes the problem back.
Why do we become decrepit, and frail, and longing for death.
Isn’t it because of the brokenness and frustration to which God has committed our fallen world.
And God has done that because of our sin.
And his remedy for it is the new world he is making with the Lord Jesus as king.
God used ancient Israel as an instrument of judgment as he is entitled to do.
The last topic of our chapter is the tithe.
The tithe was commanded of Israel in the Torah, but it’s origins are more ancient.
Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of his plunder from defeating the five kings (Genesis 14:20).
Jacob promised a tithe to God if he would provide for him and bring him back to the land (Gen 28:22).
But this pattern becomes codified in the torah.
The tithe, along with vows, becomes an important way that the Priests, Levites, and the tabernacle are supported.
The principle remains that you cannot substitute the substitute.
Tithes from the herd or flock cannot be redeemed or substituted (vv 32-33).
But the tithe of crops and grain may be redeemed by adding a fifth to its value (v 30).
In that case, the priests and Levites receive a 20% profit on top of what was vowed.
Words matter.
Human beings cannot avoid making promises because life depends upon trust and commitment. Jesus taught that people will give account for every careless word they speak.
Leviticus 27 teaches both the seriousness of promises and the mercy of God.
God expects his people to keep their word, yet our passage shows that God also provides gracious means of redemption when human weakness and poor judgment create unbearable and unjust situations.
The first way Leviticus 27 is that it sets up for us the categories of redemption and substitution.
And these categories are key to understanding what Jesus did for us.
Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many.
He came to give his life in the place of sinners.
And Leviticus 27 is part of the fabric of the Old Testament that taught Israel to think this way.
We can understand what the redemption in Jesus Christ means because of this and other Old Testament passages.
Jesus didn’t come to abolish the law. He came to fulfill the law (5:17).
It wasn’t wrong or sinful for God’s people to swear their oaths in the name of Yahweh.
Our Lord Jesus considered oaths and vows as they operated during his time.
Matthew chapter 5 verse 33 again: "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, `Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord'” (NIV).
A good rule, we might say.
That’s a good rule to keep. If someone makes a vow, he must keep it.
But then the lawyers come in. And lawyers are good at finding loopholes. And they have a good look at the law. And they say, "Look, What if the person doesn’t make a vow to the LORD? What if it is a vow on something else? What if the person swears not on the name of the LORD but on a piece of temple furniture? Is he still bound?"
The situation Jesus confronts is illustrated by Jesus’ criticisms of the religious leaders in Matthew chapter 23 verses 16 to 23:
16 "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it. (Matthew 23:16-23 NIV)
You cannot have weasel words with God.
You can’t play stupid word games with the LORD.
Stop the ‘Swear on the altar, swear on the temple’.
You are just using it to mislead and trick people. Mean what you say, say what you mean, and keep your word. Tell the truth.
Matthew chapter 5 verse 37: "Simply let your `Yes' be `Yes', and your `No', `No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one" (NIV).
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
No, I can’t make it. No I can’t do it. Yes, I will do that.
And then keep our word, even if it hurts.
We don’t want our community or our families to say we can’t be trusted, do we?
We don’t want to have ‘core’ promises and ‘non-core promises’.
We don’t want to say, it was a statement, not a promise.
In part, that means realizing what promises we cannot make.
And those things we do agree to, we need to keep.
The New Testament doesn’t bind us to tithing in the way it binds us to, say sexual holiness.
The pattern remains, not just as part of the torah, but as an ancient pattern of God’s faithful people to God’s kindness and love.
But when it comes to giving and generosity, the New Testament instead gives us the example of Jesus and principles based on sacrifice and gratitude.
It is more blessed to give than receive.
Freely you have received, freely give.
The worker is worth his keep .
He who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.
Each person should give what he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion.
17 Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
We should work at arriving at the attitude: please let me contribute.
I want to do something too for God’s great enterprise.
I want to be part of something that lasts.
The woman who put her two small coins into the temple treasury put in her whole life.
And that is what each of us is called to do: give to God what is Gods.
And that involves putting in my whole life, which includes my money.
And maybe then 5%, 10%, or 20% or 50% might be what you settle on.
Let’s pray.