I. That voluntary and special vows were permitted by the Lord. Vows should be made cautiously, deliberately, and, in most instances, conditionally; because further enlightenment, or changed conditions may render their fulfilment undesirable, unnecessary, or even impossible.
II. That vows were acceptable to the Lord according to the spirit which prompted them, and in which they were paid. When circumstances justified an Israelite repenting of his vow, it could be com-mutated or remitted, or some compensation offered in its stead. Jehovah would accept nothing that was recklessly or reluctantly presented. All adjustments and decisions were to be made according to the standards of the sanctuary, not according to human fallibility and caprice. Though a vow should not be literally performed, it must be perfectly fulfilled in respect to honourable intention and sacred fidelity. The state of heart, in the presentation of sacrifice, determined the value of the gift. This law has fever been repealed.
III. That freedom of choice given in the fulfilment of vows did not contravene the purposes of the lord concerning his work and worship. The compensation paid in lieu of the original vow went to sustain the sanctuary services, and the Lord reserved to Himself some unalienable rights. Some things when devoted could not be withheld or withdrawn under any circumstances. He demanded a tenth of the produce of the land, and enforced His claim with righteous and unrelaxing rigour. Thus the preservation and perpetuation of Jehovah’s worship were secured, and not left contingent upon the fickleness and uncertainty of human devotedness. Righteousness lies at the foundation of the Levitical economy; is the basis of natural and revealed religion. Leviticus is a witness to Christ and His gospel. In Him we have combined all that the law embodied--Altar, Sacrifice, Priest. Simplicity, and purity of aims, loftiest motives, deepest meanings, and incomparable excellence, lift the law and the gospel infinitely above all other religions of the world. The superiority to Jewish narrowness and bigotry, to human sinfulness and shortsightedness, demonstrate their divinity of origin, mutual dependence, absolute authority, undying vigour, and inestimable worth. (F. W. Brown.)
The extraordinary in the service of God
This is part of the law concerning singular vows, extraordinary ones; which though God did not expressly insist on, yet if they were consistent and conformable to the general precepts, He would be well pleased with. Note--We should not only ask what must we do, but what may we do, for the glory and honour of God. As the liberal deviseth liberal things (Isa_32:8), so the pious deviseth pious things, and the enlarged heart would willingly de something extraordinary in the service of so good a Master as God is. When we receive or expect some singular mercy, it is good to honour God with some singular vow. (Matthew Henry, D. D.)
The singular vow
I. Speaking in modern phrase, we should describe this chapter as the act of the old law on the “singular vow.” This vow was distinguished from certain other vows common among the Hebrews by the circumstance that it was susceptible of redemption. We can all understand that a consecration of a man’s self or of a man’s estate might be so hurriedly or so thoughtlessly made (as in the case of Jephtha with his daughter) that the author of them would find out afterwards how rashly the promise had been given, and how unequal he was to the keeping it, and so be anxious to compound by a money equivalent for the more spiritual service he found himself incompetent to bring. This kind of engagement is called in the Hebrew the “Neder,” and is further marked by the character of singularity or wonderfulness; whereas towards the end of this very chapter we have another vow provided for, and called the “Cherem,” which, being accompanied with some sort of anathema or execration, allowed no redemption. But now, observe very carefully the method appointed for gaining release from the obligation. Moses was to arbitrate according to what he considered the ability of the applicant to render. “Pay so much,” would be the decision of the lawgiver, “and thou mayest go free.” Rut the remarkable and the beautiful thing is, that even that measure of relief to the vow-maker was not absolutely or invariably final. Moses might overestimate the resources of the devotee for the buying himself off from the personal service of the Tabernacle--Moses might adjudge too heavy a ransom--and therefore the law provided a yet further and more merciful escape. The man was at liberty to appeal from Moses to the priest. Aaron was the priest. His very name stands for a representative before God of the wants and the sorrows and the sins of the people; and hence to transfer the adjudication of a debtor’s affairs from Moses to his brother would, as you can all see, be the introduction of a perfectly new element into the ease to be tried. The appellant would be as poor in the presence of Aaron as he was in the presence of the former judge. He would also be as rich. And yet the very terms of the text are all but decisive on the fact that he would gain by carrying his cause before this new tribunal. Aaron would certainly--if we understand the law of the case--fix the money ransom at a lower figure. And the obvious reason is that Aaron, by virtue of his own calling, would make up for it--i.e., for the deficiency--in some other way, and in some way in which Moses could not make up for it. We must not pronounce with any authority on the exact method in which the priest would settle with the poverty of a debtor, and make it possible for him to go free whom his brother would have handed over to the full penalties of the vow, to do, perhaps, Gibeonites’ work as a hewer of wood or a drawer of water. But the probability is that the remedy in Aaron’s hands would be the appointment of some easy offering in which the priest would render him the aid of his sacred functions.
II. Now it will hardly require any one of us to be very deep in controversial divinity to understand that if we are going to Christianise this type and turn it to the account of a modern religious experience, we shall be treading on most critical, though it may turn outvery lawful and very instructive, ground. In a word, then, let us say we are now having no business whatever with an unregenerate man, nor any business whatever with the sacrifice of Christ as the only channel of his justification. The solitary topic of the text is a topic for men already in the covenant. Regeneration, and even justification, must be understood as settled already; and the vow-making of Leviticus must be looked upon wholly and solely as the service of the Christian, atpeace with the law, but struggling with subsequent duties. Is there no difference? There is all the difference in the world between the terms on which the great God will take a man to heaven and the terms on which He will treat him when already in the covenant. In the former transaction the man may vow as he likes; he can pay nothing, and he is never asked to pay. In the latter transaction, where the former is finished, the man is commanded to pay, and struggles to pay; but, nevertheless, our point with you is that times without number he is unable to pay. The universal and the sad fact is that entire duty is what none of us can render. Even in the Church the law is too much for us. And what we have to do a hundred times a day, and all our lives long, is to fall back on the solitary and sufficient and omnipotent righteousness of Christ. We do greatly err if we limit the sacerdotal functions of Immanuel to the gaining us forgiveness at our conversion or the taking us to heaven when we die. We want a priest every moment; some one that is to furnish the balance of service and duty demanded by our profession, but never forthcoming. Those two men, Moses and Aaron, may be said to travel with the Christian every inch of his journey: Moses standing for what I ought to do and to be; Aaron standing for what I take refuge in as often as I come short or fall below, “If he be poorer than thy estimation.” Which of us is not poorer than the Lawgiver’s estimation? Can we pay what is due from us? We acknowledged, when first we believed, that we could do nothing of the kind. But remember that there is a power and a merit in the righteousness of Christ that continues at the disposal of the saint till the day of his death. Immanuel is certain to judge me, or, according to the text, to value me on other grounds than those of justice and of law: and the reason is that He has something to give me, something of His own. He is my Priest, and has business with the altar and the sacrifice, and under the gospel Christ is Himself all three. You who tell me my duty are only my lawgivers fresh from Mount Sinai. So is the Sermon on the Mount; so is my conscience; so is everything and every one, but Christ. But do you not see that if a Mediator, who for ever is holding up His righteousness on my behalf--if He values me my value alters? I am now not the bankrupt debtor who had not enough to pay, I am that debtor and some one else besides. I am a part of Christ. I bring now my poor offerings of duty, for I must still bring them, but I bring them covered with blood, and made worth something by blood. And, therefore, though I was not rich enough to pay what I owed as bare law sat and measured my resources, I can pay the uttermost farthing as soon as Jesus the Saviour adds His own Cross to my inheritance. (H. Christopherson.)
The provisions of righteousness and grace
Now, in the case of a person devoting himself, or his beast, his house, or his field, unto the Lord, it was obviously a question of capacity or worth; and, hence, there was a certain scale of valuation, according to age. Moses, as the representative of the claims of God, was called upon to estimate, in each case, according to the standard of the sanctuary. If a man undertakes to make a vow he must be tried by the standard of righteousness; and, moreover, in all cases we are called upon to recognise the difference between capacity and title. Moses had a certain standard from which he could not possibly descend. He had a certain rule from which he could not possibly swerve. If any one could come up to that, well; if not, he had to take his place accordingly. What, then, was to be done in reference to the person who was unable to rise to the height of the claims set forth by the representative of Divine righteousness? Hear the consolatory answer (Lev_27:8). In other words, if it be a question of man’s undertaking to meet the claims of righteousness, then he must meet them. But if, on the other hand, a man feels himself wholly unable to meet those claims, he has only to fall back upon grace, which will take him up, just ashe is. Moses is the representative of the claims of Divine righteousness. The priest is the exponent of the provisions of Divine grace. The poor man who was unable to stand before Moses fell back into the arms of the priest. Thus it is ever. If we cannot “dig” we can “beg”; and directly we take the place of a beggar it is no longer a question of what we are able to earn, but of what God is pleased to give. “Grace all the work shall crown, through everlasting days.” How happy it is to be debtors to grace! How happy to take when God is glorified in giving! When man is in question it is infinitely better to dig than to beg; but when God is in question the case is the very reverse. I would just add, that I believe this entire chapter bears, in an especial manner, upon the nation of Israel. It is intimately connected with the two preceding chapters. Israel made “a singular vow” at the foot of Mount Horeb; but were quite unable to meet the claims of law--they were far “poorer than Moses’ estimation.” But, blessed be God, they will come in under the rich provisions of Divine grace. (C. H. Mackintosh.)
Influence of a singular vow
Imade a solemn vow before God, that if General Lee were driven back from Pennsylvania, I would crown the result by the declaration of freedom to the slaves. (President Lincoln.)
A vow kept
Imet some time ago a gentleman residing in a retired town in Kent, who told that he was recently confined to his house by indisposition and inclement weather on a wintry Sunday. When the rest of the family were at church he took up George Muller’s book, in which he describes “The Lord’s Dealings” with him. He became so much interested in the author’s life and labours that he promised his conscience, then and there, that if a certain business transaction he had in hand resulted in a certain amount of success, he would send the philanthropist £100 for his Orphans’ Home. The success was realised, and he was then just on the point of sending off a cheque for the promised amount. (Elihu Burritt.)
Brittle vows
It is said of Andreas, one of the kings of Hungary, that having engaged himself by promise to go to the holy wars (as they then called them), went with all his forces, and coming to Jerusalem, only bathed himself there, as one that had washed off his promise, and so returned back again without striking One blow. Such is the case with many men at present, their promises, covenants, and agreements with others, though sealed and subscribed, prove too, too often as brittle as the glasses they drink in; no bounds will hold them, they rob the Grecians of their proverb, and own it themselves. For let but the worst of men say they will do this or that, is as much as if they had sworn they would not do it, unless it be when they embark themselves in some unwarrantable actions, and the sun may sooner be thrust out of his sphere than they diverted from their adamantine resolutions. (J. Spencer.)
The redemption of a singular vow
Incidents in Oriental history often read like parables. Men are moved by strange motives to do strange things; and the student from the west wanders in a maze of fancies and facts that are bewildering indeed. Thus it is that the early portion of a missionary’s life in an eastern land teems with things that are unreal, and he is surrounded by fellow-men who seem in no true sense his fellows. There is so much that is inexplicable to him in their motives and conduct, that, until he gets a “clue to the maze,” from a constant study of the religions that dominate their lives, his blunders are many, and sometimes even disastrous to his mission. The following is an instance of what I mean, and as it is recorded as an historical fact, will serve the purpose admirably: “Abd-al-Muttalib once vowed that if he should be so greatly blessed as to have ten sons, one should certainly be devoted to Allah. In process of time, the number was fulfilled, and the reluctant father gathered his offspring in the Kaaba, and cast lots for the one to be sacrificed. The lot fell upon Abdalla, the beautiful son of his old age. The sacrifical knife was solemnly prepared”; and, like Abraham, he stood ready for the awful deed. But the lad’s sisters came to the rescue. They knew that the Arabs offered camels in sacrifice, and in their abounding grief they entreated their father to cast lots between their brother and ten of these valuable creatures. He consented; but, to their sorrow, the lot fell a second time on the favourite boy. The number of beasts was then doubled, and the lot cast again; but still it fell upon the lad. Time after time trial was made, as the sorrowing sisters and the troubled father became more and more desperate in their anxiety to save the dear one. At last one hundred camels had been proffered, and then, to their great joy, the lot fell upon the beasts. Abdalla wassaved. God had set his own value upon the devoted boy, and when an equivalent was provided he was free. Arabs value highly the “ships of the desert”; for they are so essential to their mode of life. But a human being is more precious than many of them. This was recognised when ten camels were proffered; but until an unprecedented number had been Divinely sanctioned, the true worth of the man was notfully believed in. Thus, all the world over, man has had to learn the value of his fellow by degrees. Many have not learnt the lesson yet, because only man’s Makerand Redeemer can aright estimate the worth of man, and reveal it to us. This He hath done in the gift of His Only-begotten Son, who took man’s place that the lot might fall upon Him as of more than equal value with the whole of our race.(Robert Spurgeon.)
Philip Henry’s vow
A good man named Philip Henry resolved, when he was young, to give himself to God, and he did it in thesewords: “I take God the Father to be my Chief End; I take God the Son to be my King and Saviour; I take God the Holy Ghost to be my Guide and Sanctifier; I take the Bible to be my rule of life; I take all God’s people to be my friends; andhere I give my body and soul to be God’s--for God to use for ever.” That wasPhilip Henry’s resolve, which he wrote out for himself when he was young; and he put at the end of it--“I make this vow of my own mind freely: God give me grace to keep it.” (C. Bullock.)
A vow fulfilled
“I remember that when we arrived at the hotel at White Mountains, the ladies sat down to a cup of tea, but I preferred to take a walk alone. It was a beautiful spot. The sun was just then reclining his head behind Mount Washington, with all that glorious drapery of an American sunset, of which we know nothing in this country. I felt that I should like to be walking with my God on this earth! I said, ‘What shall I render to my Lord for all His benefits to me?’ I was led further to repeat that question which Paul asked under other circumstances, ‘Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?’ The answer came immediately. It was this: ‘It is true thou canst not bring the many thousands thou hast left in thy native country to see this beautiful scenery; but thou canst create beautiful scenes for them. It is possible on a suitable spot so to arrange art and nature, that they shall be within the walk of every working man in Halifax; that he shall go and take his stroll there after he has done his hard day’s toil, and be able to get home again without being tired.’“ He pondered the thought, prayed over it, and the next day resolved to carry it into execution. On his return to England he took immediate steps for the fulfilment of his purpose; the design of the proposed park was entrusted to the late Sir Joseph Paxton, and on the 14th of August, 1857, it was publicly opened. It covers twelve and a half acres of ground, and its entire cost was upwards of £30,000. (Memoir of Sir Francis Crossley.)
