CONCERNING VOWS
Lev 27:1-34
As already remarked, the book of Leviticus certainly seems, at
first sight, to be properly completed with the previous chapter; and
hence it has been not unnaturally suggested that this chapter has by
some editor been transferred, either of intention or accident, from
an earlier part of the book - as, e.g., after chapter 25. The
question is one of no importance; but it is not hard to perceive a
good reason for the position of this chapter after not only the rest
of the law, but also after the words of promise and threatening
which conclude and seal its prescriptions. For what has preceded has
concerned duties of religion which were obligatory upon all
Israelites; the regulations of this chapter, on the contrary, have
to do with special vows, which were obligatory on no one, and
concerning which it is expressly said. {Deu 23:22} "If thou shalt
forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee." To these, therefore,
the promises and threats of the covenant could not directly apply,
and therefore the law which regulates the making and keeping of vows
is not unfitly made to follow, as an appendix, the other legislation
of the book.
Howsoever the making of vows be not obligatory as a necessary part
of the religious life, yet, in all ages and in all religions, a
certain instinct of the heart has often led persons, either in order
to procure something from God, or as a thank offering for some
special favour received, or else as a spontaneous expression of love
to God, to "make a special vow." But just in proportion to the
sincerity and depth of the devout feeling which suggests such
special acts of worship and devotion, will be the desire to act in
the vow, as in all else, according to the will of God, so that the
vow may be accepted of Him. What then may one properly dedicate to
God in a vow? And, again, if by any stress of circumstances a man
feels compelled to seek release from a vow, is he at liberty to
recall it? and if so, then under what conditions? Such are the
questions which in this chapter were answered for Israel.
As for the matter of a vow, it is ruled that an Israelite might thus
consecrate unto the Lord either persons, or of the beasts of his
possession, or his dwelling, or the right in any part of his land.
On the other hand, "the firstling among beasts" (Lev 27:26-27), any
"devoted thing" (Lev 27:28-29), and the tithe (Lev 27:30-33) might
not be made the object of a special vow, for the simple reason that
on various grounds each of these belonged unto the Lord as His due
already. Under each of these special heads is given a schedule of
valuation, according to which, if a man should wish for any reason
to redeem again for his own use that which, either by prior Divine
claim or by special vow, had been dedicated to the Lord, he might be
permitted to do so.
OF THE VOWING OF PERSONS
Lev 27:1-8
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children
of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall accomplish a vow, the
persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And the estimation
shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years
old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the
shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation
shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto
twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty
shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month
old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the
male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall
be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and
upward; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen
shekels, and for the female ten shekels. But if he be poorer than
thy estimation, then he shall be set before the priest, and the
priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed
shall the priest value him."
First, we have the law (Lev 27:2-8) concerning the vowing of
persons. In this case it does not appear that it was intended that
the personal vow should be fulfilled by the actual devotement of the
service of the person to the sanctuary. For such service abundant
provision was made by the separation of the Levites, and it can
hardly be imagined that under ordinary conditions it would be
possible to find special occupation about the sanctuary for all who
might be prompted thus to dedicate themselves by a vow to the Lord.
Moreover, apart from tins, we read here of the vowing to the Lord of
young children, from five years of age down to one month, from whom
tabernacle service is not to be thought of.
The vow which dedicated the person to the Lord was therefore usually
discharged by the simple expedient of a commutation price to be paid
into the treasury of the sanctuary, as the symbolic equivalent of
the value of his self-dedication. The persons thus consecrated are
said to be "for the Lord," and this fact was to be recognised and
their special dedication to Him discharged by the payment of a
certain sum of money. The amount to be paid in each instance is
fixed by the law before us, with an evident reference to the labour
value of the person thus given to the Lord in the vow, as determined
by two factors-the sex and the age. Inasmuch as the woman is
inferior in strength to the man, she is rated lower than he is. As
affected by age, persons vowed are distributed into four classes:
the lowest, from one month up to five years; the second, from five
years to twenty; the third, from twenty to sixty; the fourth, from
sixty years of age and upwards.
The law takes first (Lev 27:3-4) the case of persons in the prime of
their working powers, from twenty to sixty years old, for whom the
highest commutation rate is fixed; namely, fifty shekels for the
male and thirty for a female, "after the shekel of the sanctuary,"
i.e., of full standard weight. If younger than this, obviously the
labour value of the person’s service would be less; it is therefore
fixed (Lev 27:5) at twenty shekels for the male and ten for the
female, if the age be from five to twenty; and if the person be over
sixty, then (Lev 27:7), as the feebleness of age is coming on, the
rate is fifteen shekels for the male and ten for the female. In the
case of a child from one month to five years old, the rate is fixed
(Lev 27:6) at five, or, in a female, then at three shekels. In this
last case it will be observed that the rate for the male is the same
as that appointed {Num 18:15-16} for the redemption of the
firstborn, "from a month old," in all cases. As in that ordinance,
so here, the payment was merely a symbolic recognition of the
special claim of God on the person, without any reference to a
labour value.
But although the sum was so small that even at the most it could not
nearly represent the actual value of the labour of such as were able
to labour, yet one can see that cases might occur when a man might
be moved to make such a vow of dedication of himself or of a child
to the Lord, while he was yet too poor to pay even such a small
amount. Hence the kindly provision (Lev 27:8) that if any person be
poorer than this estimation, he shall not therefore be excluded from
the privilege of self-dedication to the Lord, but "he shall be set
before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the
ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him."
OF THE VOWING OF DOMESTIC
ANIMALS
Lev 27:9-13
"And if it be a beast, whereof men offer an oblation unto the
Lord, all that any man giveth of such unto the Lord shall be holy.
He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for
a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then both it
and that for which it is changed shall be holy. And if it be any
unclean beast of which they do not offer an oblation unto the Lord,
then lie shall set the beast before the priest: and the priest shall
value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou the priest valuest it,
so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add
the fifth part thereof unto thy estimation."
This next section concerns the vowing to the Lord of domestic
animals (Lev 27:9-13). If the animal thus dedicated to the Lord were
such as could be used in sacrifice, then the animal itself was taken
for the sanctuary, service, and the vow was unalterable and
irrevocable. If, however, the animal vowed was "any unclean beast,"
then the priest (Lev 27:12) was to set a price upon it, according to
its value; for which, we may infer, it was to be sold and the
proceeds devoted to the sanctuary.
In this case, the person who had vowed the animal was allowed to
redeem it to himself again (Lev 27:13) by payment of this estimated
price and one-fifth additional, a provision which was evidently
intended to be of the nature of a fine, and to be a check upon the
making of rash vows.
OF THE VOWING OF HOUSES
AND FIELDS
Lev 27:14-25
"And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the
Lord, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad:
as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand. And if he that
sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth
part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his.
And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord part of the field of his
possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the sowing
thereof: the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty
shekels of silver. If he sanctify his field from the year of
jubilee, according to thy estimation it shall stand. But if he
sanctify his field after the jubilee, then the priest shall reckon
unto him the money according to the years that remain unto the year
of jubilee, and an abatement shall be made from thy estimation. And
if he that sanctified the field will indeed redeem it, then he shall
add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it
shall be assured to him. And if he will not redeem the field, or if
he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any
more: but the field, when it goeth out in the jubilee, shall be holy
unto the Lord, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be
the priest’s. And if he sanctify unto the Lord a field which he hath
bought, which is not of the field of his possession; then the priest
shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation unto the year of
jubilee: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy
thing unto the Lord. In the year of jubilee the field shall return
unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession
of the land belongeth. And all thy estimations shall be according to
the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel."
The law regarding the consecration of a man’s house unto the Lord by
a vow (Lev 27:14-15) is very simple. The priest is to estimate its
value, without right of appeal. Apparently, the man might still live
in it, if he desired, but only as one living in a house belonging to
another; presumably, a rental was to be paid, on the basis of the
priest’s estimation of value, into the sanctuary treasury. If the
man wished again to redeem it, then, as in the case of the beast
that was vowed, he must pay into the treasury the estimated value of
the house, with the addition of one fifth. In the case of the
"sanctifying" or dedication of a field by a special vow two cases
might arise, which are dealt with in succession. The first case (Lev
27:16-21) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which belonged
to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (Lev 27:22-24), that of
one which had come to him by purchase. In the former case, the
priest was to fix a price upon the field on the basis of fifty
shekels for so much land as would be sown with a homer - about eight
bushels-of barley. In case the dedication took effect from the year
of jubilee, this full price was to be paid into the Lord’s treasury
for the field; but if from a later year in the cycle, then the rate
was to be diminished in proportion to the number of years of the
jubilee period which might have already passed at the date of the
vow. Inasmuch as in the case of a field which had been purchased, it
was ordered that the price of the estimation should be paid down to
the priest "in that day" (Lev 27:23) in which the appraisal was
made, it would appear as if, in the present case, the man was
allowed to pay it annually, a shekel for each year of the jubilee
period, or by instalments otherwise, as he might choose, as a
periodic recognition of the special claim of the Lord upon that
field, in consequence of his vow. Redemption of the field from the
obligation of the vow was permitted under the condition of the fifth
added to the priest’s estimation, e.g., on the payment of sixty
instead of fifty shekels (Lev 27:19).
If, however, without having thus redeemed the field, the man who
vowed should sell it to another man, it is ordered that the field,
which otherwise would revert to him again in full right of usufruct
when the jubilee year came round, should be forfeited; so that when
the jubilee came the exclusive right of the field would henceforth
belong to the priest, as in the case of a field devoted by the ban.
The intention of this regulation is evidently penal; for the field,
during the time covered by the vow, was in a special sense the
Lord’s; and the man had the use of it for himself only upon
condition of a certain annual payment; to sell it, therefore, during
that time, was, in fact, from the legal point of view, to sell
property, absolute right in which he had by his vow renounced in
favour of the Lord. The case of the dedication in a vow of a field
belonging to a man, not as a paternal inheritance, but by purchase
(Lev 27:22-24), only differed from the former in that, as already
remarked, immediate payment in full of the sum at which it was
estimated was made obligatory; when the jubilee year came, the field
reverted to the original owner, according to the law. {Lev 25:28}
The reason for thus insisting on full immediate payment, in the case
of the dedication of a field acquired by purchase, is plain, when we
refer to the Lev 25:25, according to which the original owner had
the right of redemption guaranteed to him at any time before the
jubilee. If, in the case of such a dedicated field, any part of the
amount due to the sanctuary were still unpaid, obviously this, as a
lien upon the land, would stand in the way of such redemption. The
regulation of immediate payment is therefore intended to protect the
original owner’s right to redeem the field.
Lev 27:25 lays down the general principle that in all these
estimations and commutations the shekel must be "the shekel of the
sanctuary," twenty gerahs to the shekel; -words which are not to be
understood as pointing to the existence of two distinct shekels as
current, but simply as meaning that the shekel must be of full
weight, such as only could pass current in transactions with the
sanctuary.
THE "VOW" IN NEW
TESTAMENT ETHICS
Not without importance is the question whether the vow, as
brought before us here, in the sense of a voluntary promise to God
of something not due to Him by the law, has, of right, a place in
New Testament ethics and practical life. It is to be observed in
approaching this question, that the Mosaic law here simply deals
with a religious custom which it found prevailing, and while it
gives it a certain tacit sanction, yet neither here or elsewhere
ever recommends the practice; nor does the whole Old Testament
represent God as influenced by such a voluntary promise, to do
something which otherwise He would not have done. At the same time,
inasmuch as the religious impulse which prompts to the vow,
howsoever liable to lead to an abuse of the practice, may be in
itself right, Moses takes the matter in hand, as in this chapter and
elsewhere, and deals with it simply in an educational way. If a man
will vow, while it is not forbidden, he is elsewhere {Deu 23:22}
reminded that there is no special merit in it; if he forbear, he is
no worse a man.
Further, the evident purpose of these regulations is to teach that,
whereas it must in the nature of the case be a very serious thing to
enter into a voluntary engagement of anything to the holy God, it is
not to be done hastily and rashly; hence a check is put upon such
inconsiderate promising, by the refusal of the law to release from
the voluntary obligation, in some cases, upon any terms; and by its
refusal, in any case, to release except under the condition of a
very material fine for breach of promise. It was thus taught clearly
that if men made promises to God, they must keep them. The spirit of
these regulations has been precisely expressed by the Preacher: {Ecc
5:5-6} "Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than thou shouldst
vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin;
neither say thou before the messenger [of God], that it was an
error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the
work of thine hands?" Finally, in the careful guarding of the
practice by the penalty attached also to change or substitution in a
thing vowed, or to selling that which had been vowed to God, as if
it were one’s own; and, last of all, by insisting that the
full-weight shekel of the sanctuary should be made the standard in
all the appraisals involved in the vow, -the law kept steadily and
uncompromisingly before the conscience the absolute necessity of
being strictly honest with God.
But in all this there is nothing which necessarily passes over to
the new dispensation, except the moral principles which are assumed
in these regulations. A hasty promise to God, in an inconsiderate
spirit, even of that which ought to be freely promised Him, is sin,
as much now as then; and, still more, the breaking of any promise to
Him when once made. So we may take hence to ourselves the lesson of
absolute honesty in all our dealing with God, -a lesson not less
needed now than then.
Yet this does not touch the central question: Has the vow, in the
sense above defined-namely, the promise to God of something not due
to Him in the law-a place in New Testament ethics? It is true that
it is nowhere forbidden; but as little is it approved. The reference
of our Lord {Mat 15:5-6} to the abuse of the vow by the Pharisees to
justify neglect of parental claims does not imply the propriety of
vows at present; for the old dispensation was then still in force.
The vows of Paul {Act 18:18, Act 21:24-26} apparently refer to the
vow of a Nazarite, and in no case present a binding example for us,
inasmuch as they are but illustrations of his frequent conformity to
Jewish usages in things involving no sin, in which he became a Jew
that he might gain the Jews. On the other hand, the New Testament
conception of Christian life and duty seems clearly to leave no room
for a voluntary promise to God of what is not due, seeing that,
through the transcendent obligation of grateful love to the Lord for
His redeeming love, there is no possible degree of devotement of
self or of one’s substance which could be regarded as not already
God’s due. "He died for all, that they which live should no longer
live unto themselves, but unto Him who for their sakes died and rose
again." The vow, in the sense brought before us in this chapter, is
essentially correlated to a legal system such as the Mosaic, in
which dues to God are prescribed by rule. In New Testament ethics,
as distinguished from those of the Old, we must therefore conclude
that for the vow there is no logical place.
The question is not merely speculative and unpractical. In fact, we
here come upon one of the fundamental points of difference between
Romish and Protestant ethics. For it is the Romish doctrine that,
besides such works as are essential to a state of salvation, which
are by God made obligatory upon all, there are other works which, as
Rome regards the matter, are not commanded, but are only made
matters of Divine counsel, in order to the attainment, by means of
their observance, of a higher type of Christian life. Such works as
these, unlike the former class, because not of universal obligation,
may properly be made the subject of a vow. These are, especially,
the voluntary renunciation of all property, abstinence from
marriage, and the monastic life. But this distinction of precepts
and counsels, and the theory of vows, and of works of super-erogation,
which Rome has based upon it, all Protestants have with one consent
rejected, and that with abundant reason. For not only do we fail to
find any justification for these views in the New Testament, but the
history of the Church has shown, with what should be convincing
clearness, that, howsoever we may gladly recognise in the monastic
communities of Rome, in all ages, men and women living under special
vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity, whose purity of life and
motive, and sincere devotion to the Lord, cannot be justly called in
question, it is none the less clear that, on the whole, the tendency
of the system has been toward either legalism on the one hand, or a
sad licentiousness of life on the other. In this matter of vows, as
in so many things, it has been the fatal error of the Roman Church
that, under the cover of a supposed Old Testament warrant, she has
returned to "the weak and beggarly elements" which, according to the
New Testament, have only a temporary use in the earliest childhood
of religious life.
EXCLUSIONS FROM THE VOW
Lev 27:26-33
"Only the firstling among beasts, which is made a firstling to
the Lord, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox or sheep, it is
the Lord’s. And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom
it according to thine estimation, and shall add unto it the fifth
part thereof: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold
according to thy estimation. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that
a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man
or beast, or of the field of his possession shall be sold or
redeemed i every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord. None
devoted, which shall be devoted of men shall he ransomed; he shall
surely be put to death. And all the tithe of the land, whether of
the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s: it
is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will redeem aught of his tithe,
he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof. And all the tithe of
the herd or the flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth
shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it he good
or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all then
both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not
be redeemed."
The remaining verses of this chapter specify three classes of
property which could not be dedicated by a special vow, namely, "the
firstling among beasts" (Lev 27:26); any "devoted thing" (Lev
27:28-29), i.e., anything which had been devoted to the Lord by the
ban-as, e.g., all the persons and property in the city of Jericho by
Joshua; {Jos 7:17} and, lastly, "the tithe of the land" (Lev 27:30).
The reason for prohibiting the vowing of any of these is in every
case one and the same; either by the law or by a previous personal
act they already belonged to the Lord. To devote them in a vow would
therefore be to vow to the Lord that over which one had no right. As
for the firstborn, the Lord had declared His everlasting claim on
these at the time of the Exodus; {Exo 13:12-15} to vow to give the
Lord His own, had been absurd. To the law previously given, however,
concerning the firstling of unclean beasts, {Exo 13:13} it is here
added that, if a man wish to redeem such a firstling, the same law
shall apply as in the redemption of what has been vowed; namely, the
priest was to appraise it, and then the man whose it had been might
redeem it by the payment of the amount thus fixed, increased by one
fifth.
THE LAW OF THE BAN
Lev 27:28-29
"Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto
the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the
field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted
thing is most holy unto the Lord. None devoted, which shall be
devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death."
Neither could any "devoted thing" be given to the Lord by a vow, and
for the same reason-that it belonged to Him already. But it is added
that, unlike that which has been vowed, the Lord’s firstlings and
the tithes, that which has been devoted may neither be sold nor
redeemed. If it be a person which is thus "devoted," "he shall
surely be put to death" (Lev 27:29). The reason of this law is found
in the nature of the herem or ban. It devoted to the Lord only such
persons and things as were in a condition of irreformable hostility
and irreconcilable antagonism to the kingdom of God. By the ban such
were turned over to God, in order to the total nullification of
their power for evil; by destroying whatever was capable of
destruction, as the persons and all living things that belonged to
them; and by devoting to the Lord’s service in the sanctuary and
priesthood such of their property as, like silver, gold, and land,
was in its nature incapable of destruction. In such devoted persons
or things no man therefore was allowed to assert any personal claim
or interest, such as the right of sale or of redemption would imply.
Elsewhere the Israelite is forbidden even to desire the silver or
gold that was on the idols in devoted cities, {Deu 7:25} or to bring
it into his house or tent, on penalty of being himself banned or
devoted like them; a threat which was carried out in the case of
Achan, {Joshua 7} who, for appropriating a wedge of gold and a
garment which had been devoted, according to the law here and
elsewhere declared, was summarily put to death.
This is not the place to enter fully into a discussion of the very
grave questions which arise in connection with this law of the ban,
in which it is ordered that "none devoted," "whether of man or
beast," "shall be ransomed," but "shall be surely put to death." The
most familiar instance of its application is furnished by the case
of the Canaanitish cities, which Joshua, in accordance with this law
of Lev 27:28-29, utterly destroyed, with their inhabitants and every
living thing that was in them. There are many sincere believers in
Christ who find it almost impossible to believe that it can be true
that God commanded such a slaughter as this; and the difficulty well
deserves a brief consideration. It may not indeed be possible wholly
to remove it from every mind; but one may well call attention, in
connection with these verses, to certain considerations which should
at least suffice very greatly to relieve its stress.
In the first place, it is imperative to remember that, if we accent
the teaching of Scripture, we have before us in this history, not
the government of man, but the government of God, a true theocracy.
Now it is obvious that if even fallible men may be rightly granted
power to condemn men to death, for the sake of the public good, much
more must this right be conceded, and that without any limitation,
to the infinitely righteous and infallible King of kings, if, in
accord with the Scripture declarations, He was, literally and
really, the political Head (if we may be allowed the expression) of
the Israelitish nation. Further, if this absolute right of God in
matters of life and death be admitted, as it must be; it is plain
that He may rightly delegate the execution of His decrees to human
agents. If this right is granted to one of our fellow men, as to a
king or a magistrate, much more to God.
Granting that the theocratic government of Israel was a historical
fact, the only question then remaining as to the right of the ban,
concerns the justice of its application in particular cases. With
regard to this, we may concede that it was quite possible that men
might sometimes apply this law without Divine authority; but we are
not required to defend such cases, if any be shown, any more than to
excuse the infliction of capital punishment in America sometimes by
lynch law. These cases furnish no argument against its infliction
after due legal process, and by legitimate governmental authority.
As to the terrible execution of this law of the ban, in the
destruction of the inhabitants of the Canaantish cities, if the fact
of the theocratic authority be granted, it is not so difficult to
justify this as some have imagined. Nor, conversely, when the actual
facts are thoroughly known, can the truth of the statement of the
Scripture that God commanded this terrible destruction, be regarded
as irreconcilable with those moral perfections which Scripture and
reason alike attribute to the Supreme Being.
The researches and discoveries of recent years have let in a flood
of light upon the state of society prevailing among those
Canaanitish tribes at the date of their destruction; and they
warrant us in saying that in the whole history of our race it would
be hard to point to any civilised community which has sunken to such
a depth of wickedness and moral pollution. As we have already seen,
the book of Leviticus gives many dark hints of unnamable horrors
among the Canaanitish races: the fearful cruelties of the worship of
Molech, and the unmentionable impurities of the cult of Ashtoreth;
the prohibition among some of these of female chastity, requiring
that all be morally sacrificed- one cannot go into these things. And
when now we read in Holy Scripture that the infinitely pure, holy
and righteous God commanded that these utterly depraved and
abandoned communities should be extirpated from the face of the
earth, is it, after all, so hard to believe that this should be
true? Nay, may we not rather with abundant reason say that it would
have been far more difficult to reconcile with the character of God
it He had suffered them any longer to exist?
Nor have we yet fully stated the case. For we must, in addition,
recall the fact that these corrupt communities, which by this law of
the ban were devoted to utter destruction, were in no out-of-the-way
corner of the world, but on one of its chief highways. The
Phoenicians, for instance, more than any people of that time, were
the navigators and travellers of the age; so that from Canaan as a
center this horrible moral pestilence was inevitably carried by them
hither and thither, a worse than the "black death," to the very
extremities of the known world. Have we then so certainly good
reason to call in question the righteousness of the law which here
ordains that no person thus devoted should be ransomed, but be
surely put to death? Rather are we inclined to see in this law of
the theocratic kingdom. and its execution in Canaan-so often held up
as an illustration of the awful cruelty of the old theocratic
regime-not only a conspicuous vindication of the righteousness and
justice of God, but a no less illustrious manifestation of his
mercy; -of His mercy, not merely to Israel, but to the whole human
race of that age, who because of this deadly infection of moral evil
had otherwise again everywhere sunk to such unimaginable depths of
depravity as to have required a second flood for the cleansing of
the world. This certainly was the way in which the Psalmist regarded
it, {Psa 136:17-22} he praised Jehovah as One who "smote great
kings, and slew famous kings, and gave their land for a heritage,
even a heritage unto Israel His servant: for HIS MERCY endureth
forever"; a thought which is again more formally expressed {Psa
62:12} in the words: "Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for Thou
tenderest to every man according to his work."
Nor can we leave this law of the ban without noting the very solemn
suggestion which it contains that there may be in the universe
persons who, despite the great redemption, are morally irredeemable,
hopelessly obdurate; for whom, under the government of a God
infinitely righteous and merciful, nothing remains but the execution
of the ban-the "eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his
angels"; {Mat 25:41} "a fierceness of fire which shall devour the
adversaries". {Heb 10:27} And this, not merely although, but BECAUSE
God’s "mercy endureth forever."
|