a natural result, the Jewish people became few in number, as here
predicted; having been reduced from not less than seven or eight
millions in the days of the kingdom, to a minimum, about two hundred
years ago, of not more than three millions.[51] And, strangest of
all, throughout this time the once fertile land has lain desolate, for
the Gentiles have never settled in it in any great number; and in
place of a population of five hundred to the square mile in the days
of Solomon, we find now only a few hundred thousand miserable people,
and the most of the land, for lack of cultivation, in such a condition
that nothing can easily exceed its desolation. And when we have said
all this, and much more that might be said without exaggeration, we
have but simply testified that vv. 31-34 of this chapter have in the
fullest possible sense become historical fact. For it was written (vv.
32-34): "I will bring the land into desolation: and your enemies which
dwell therein shall be astonished at it. And you will I scatter among
the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land
shall be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste. Then shall
the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be
in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her
sabbaths."
[51] So Basnage ("History of the Jews," London, 1700, chap.
xxviii., sec. 15) estimated it in his day. Since then, however,
their number has materially increased, and is still increasing;
a fact the significance of which has been pointed out by the
present writer in "The Jews; or, Prediction and Fulfilment" (New
York, 1883, pp. 178-83).
These facts make this chapter to be an apologetic of prime importance.
It is this, because we have here evidence of foreknowledge, and
therefore of the supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God in
the prophecy here recorded. The facts cannot be adequately explained,
either on the supposition of fortunate guessing or of accidental
coincidence. It was not indeed impossible to forecast on natural
grounds that Israel would become corrupt, or that, if so, they should
experience disaster in consequence of their moral depravation. For God
has not one law for Israel and another for other nations. Nor does
the argument rest on the details of these threatened judgments, as
consisting in the sword, famine, and pestilence; for other nations
have experienced these calamities, though, indeed, few in equal
measure with Israel; and of these one has a natural dependence on
another.
But setting aside these elements of the prophecy, as of less
apologetic significance, two particulars yet remain in which this
predicted experience has been unique, and antecedently to the event in
so high degree improbable, that we can reasonably think here neither
of shrewd human forecast nor of chance agreement of prediction and
fulfilment. The one is the predicted survival of exiled Israel as a
nation in the land of their enemies, their indestructibility
throughout centuries of unequalled suffering; the other, the
extraordinary fact that their land, so rich and fertile, which was at
that time and for centuries afterwards one of the principal highways
of the world's commerce and travel, the coveted possession of many
nations from a remote antiquity, should during the whole period of
Israel's banishment remain comparatively unoccupied and untilled.
As regards the former particular, we may search history in vain for a
similar phenomenon. Here is a people who, at their best, as compared
with many other nations, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, and
Romans, were few in number and in material resources; who now have
been scattered from their land for centuries, crushed and oppressed
always, in a degree and for a length of time never experienced by any
other people; yet never merging in the nations with whom they were
mingled, or losing in the least their peculiar racial characteristics
and distinct national identity. This, although now for a long time
matter of history, was yet, _à priori_, so improbable that all history
records no other instance of the kind; and yet all this had to be if
those words of ver. 44 were to prove true: "When they be in the land
of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them,
to destroy them utterly." With abundant reason has Professor
Christlieb referred to this fact as an unanswerable apologetic, thus:
"We point to the people of Israel as a perennial historical miracle.
The continued existence of this nation up to the present day, the
preservation of its national peculiarities throughout thousands of
years, in spite of all dispersion and oppression, remains so
unparalleled a phenomenon, that without the special providential
preparation of God, and His constant interference and protection, it
would be impossible for us to explain it. For where else is there a
people over which such judgments have passed, and yet not ended in
destruction?"[52]
[52] "Modern Doubt and Christian Belief," p. 333.
No less remarkable and significant is the long-continued depopulation
of the land of Israel. For it was and is by nature a richly fertile
land; and at the time of this prediction--whether it be assigned to an
earlier or a later period--it was upon one of the chief commercial and
military routes of the world, and its possession has thus been an
object of ambition to all the dominant nations of history. Surely, one
would have expected that if Israel should be cast out of such a land,
it would at once and always be occupied by others who should cultivate
its proverbially productive soil. But it was not to be so, for it had
been otherwise written. And yet it seems as if it had scarcely been
possible that through all these later centuries of the history of
Christendom, the land could have thus lain desolate, except for the so
momentous discovery in 1497 of the Cape route to India, by which
event--which no one could in so remote days have well anticipated--the
tide of commerce with the East was turned away from Egypt, Syria, and
Palestine, to the Atlantic and the Indian Oceans; so that the land of
Israel was left, like a city made to stand solitary in a desert by the
shifting of the channel of a river; and its predicted desolation thus
went on to receive its most complete, consummate, and now
long-realised fulfilment.
So, then, stands the case. It is truly difficult to understand how one
can fairly escape the inference from these facts, namely, that they
imply in this chapter such a prescience of the future as is not
possible to man, and therefore demonstrate that the Spirit of God
must, in the deepest and truest sense, have been the author of these
predictions of the future of the chosen people and their land.
And it is of the very first importance, with reference to the
controversies of our day regarding this question, that we note the
fact that the argument is of such a nature that it is not in the least
dependent upon the date that any may have assigned to the origin of
this chapter. Even though we should, with Graf and Wellhausen,
attribute its composition to exilian or post-exilian times, it would
still remain true that the chapter contained unmistakable predictions
regarding the nation and the land; predictions which, if fulfilled, no
doubt, in a degree, in the days of the Babylonian exile and the
return, were yet to receive a fulfilment far more minute, exhaustive,
and impressive, in centuries which then were still in a far distant
future. But if this be granted, it is plain that these facts impose a
limitation upon the conclusions of criticism. That only is true
science which takes into view _all_ the facts with respect to any
phenomenon for which one seeks to account; and in this case the facts
which are to be explained by any theory, are not merely peculiarities
of style and vocabulary, etc., but also this phenomenon of a
demonstrably predictive element in the chapter; a phenomenon which
requires for its explanation the assumption of a supernatural
inspiration as one of the factors in its authorship. But if this is
so, how can we reconcile with such a Divine inspiration any theory
which makes the last statement of the chapter, that "these are the
statutes which the Lord made ... in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses,"
to be untrue, and the preceding "laws" to be thus, in plain language,
a forgery of exilian or post-exilian times?
THE PROMISED RESTORATION.
xxvi. 40-45.
"And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their
fathers, in their trespass which they trespassed against Me, and
also that because they have walked contrary unto Me, I also
walked contrary unto them, and brought them into the land of
their enemies: if then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and
they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I
remember My covenant with Jacob; and also My covenant with Isaac,
and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will
remember the land. The land also shall be left of them, and shall
enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them; and
they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because,
even because they rejected My judgments, and their soul abhorred
My statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of
their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them,
to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them: for
I am the Lord their God: but I will for their sakes remember the
covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land
of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God:
I am the Lord."
This closing section of this extraordinary chapter yet remains to be
considered. It is the most remarkable of all, whether from a
historical or a religious point of view. It declares that even under
so extreme visitations of Divine wrath, and howsoever long Israel's
stubborn rebellion and impenitence should continue, yet the nation
should never become extinct and pass away. Very impressive are the
words (vv. 43-45) which emphasise this prediction: "The land also
shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth
desolate without them; and they shall accept[53] of the punishment of
their iniquity: because, even because they rejected My judgments, and
their soul abhorred My statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in
the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I
abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with
them: for I am the Lord their God: but I will for their sakes remember
the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land
of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am
the Lord."
[53] It is the same Hebrew word which is rendered "enjoy" when
applied to the land and "accept" when applied to Israel: it
might thus be rendered "enjoy" in the latter case--"they shall
enjoy the punishment of their iniquity," when the words would
express a severe irony, a figure of which we have examples
elsewhere in the Scriptures.
As to what is included in this promise of everlasting covenant mercy,
we are told explicitly (ver. 40)[54] that as the final result of these
repeated and long-continued judgments, the children of Israel "shall
confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their
trespass which they trespassed" against the Lord. Also they will
acknowledge (ver. 41) that all these calamities have been sent upon
them by the Lord; that it is because they have walked contrary unto
Him that He has also walked contrary unto them, and brought them into
the land of their enemies. And then follows the great promise (vv. 41,
42): "If then their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then
accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember My
covenant with Jacob; and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My
covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land."
[54] The "if" which introduces ver. 40 in the Authorised version
has no equivalent in the Hebrew, and should therefore be
omitted, as in the revision.
These words are very full and explicit. That they have had already a
partial and inadequate fulfilment in the restoration from Babylon, and
the spiritual quickening by which it was accompanied, is not to be
denied. But one only needs to refer to the covenants to which
reference is made, and especially the covenant with Abraham, as
recorded in the book of Genesis,[55] to see that by no possibility can
that Babylonian restoration be said to have exhausted this prophecy.
Since those earlier days Israel has again forsaken the Lord, and
committed the greatest of all their national sins in the rejection and
crucifixion of the promised Messiah; and therefore, again, according
to the threat of the earlier part of this chapter, they have been cast
out of their land and scattered among the nations, and the land,
again, for centuries has been left a desolation. But for all this,
God's covenant with Israel has not lapsed, nor, as we are here
formally assured, can it ever lapse. To imagine, with some, that
because of the new dispensation of grace to the Gentiles which has
come in, therefore the promises of this covenant have become void, is
a mistake which is fatal to all right understanding of the prophetic
word. As for the spiritual blessing of true repentance and a national
turning unto God, Zechariah, after the Babylonian captivity,
represents the prediction as yet to have a larger and far more blessed
fulfilment, in a day which, beyond all controversy, has never yet
risen on the world. For it is written (Zech. xii. 8-14; xiii. 1): "In
that day ... I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and
they shall look unto Me whom they have pierced: and they shall mourn
for Him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness
for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn; ... all the
families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. In
that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." And that
this great promise, which implies by its very terms the previous
"piercing" of the Messiah, is still valid for the nation in the new
dispensation, is expressly testified by the Apostle Paul, who formally
teaches, with regard to Israel, that "God did not cast off His people
which He foreknew;" that "the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance;" and that therefore the days are surely coming when "all
Israel shall be saved" (Rom. xi. 2, 29, 26).
[55] See Gen. xii. 1-3; xiii. 14-17; xv. 5-21; xvii. 2-11; xxii.
15-18.
And while nothing is said in this chapter of Leviticus as to the
relation of this future repentance of Israel to the establishment of
the kingdom of God, we only speak according to the express teaching
both of the later prophets and of the apostles, when we add that we
are not to think of this covenant of God concerning Israel as of
little consequence to our faith and hope as Christians. For we are
plainly taught, with regard to the present exclusion and impenitence
of Israel (Rom. xi. 15), that "the receiving of them" again shall be
as "life from the dead;" which, again, is only what long before had
been declared in the Old Testament (Psalm cii. 13-16); that when God
shall arise and have mercy upon Zion, and the set time to have pity
upon her shall come, the nations shall fear the name of the Lord, and
all the kings of the earth His glory.
And while we may grant that the matter is in itself of less moment, it
is yet of importance to observe that the very covenant which promises
spiritual mercy to the people, as explicitly assures us (ver. 42)
that, when Israel confesses its sin, God "will remember the land" as
well as the people. All that has been said for the present and
unchangeable validity of the former part of this promise, is of
necessity true for this latter part also. To affirm the former, and on
that ground maintain the faith and expectation of the future
repentance of Israel, and yet deny the latter part of this promise,
which is no less verbally explicit, regarding the land of Israel, is
an inconsistency of interpretation which is as astonishing as it is
common. For the restoration of the scattered nation to their land is
repeatedly promised, as here, in connection with, and yet in clear
distinction from, their conversion, by both the pre- and post-exilian
prophets. And if, for reasons not hard to discover, the promise
concerning the land is not in so many words repeated in the New
Testament, its future fulfilment is yet, to say the least, distinctly
assumed in the prediction of Christ (Luke xxi. 24), that Israel,
because of their rejection of Him, should be "led captive into all the
nations, and Jerusalem be trodden down of the Gentiles,"--not for
ever, but only--"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Surely
these words of our Lord imply that, whenever these "times of the
Gentiles" shall have run their course, their present domination over
the Holy City and the Holy Land shall end.
Nor is such a restoration of Israel to their land, with all that it
implies, inconsistent, as some have urged, with the spirit and
principles of the Gospel. Many a Gentile nation is greatly favoured of
the Lord, and, as one mark of that favour, is permitted to abide in
peace and prosperity in their own land. Why should it be any more
alien to the spirit of the Gospel that penitent Israel should be
blessed in like manner, and, upon their turning unto the Lord, also,
like many other nations, be permitted to dwell in peace and safety in
that land which lies almost empty and desolate for them until this
day? And if it be urged that, admitting this interpretation, we shall
also be obliged to admit that Israel is in the future to be exalted to
a position of pre-eminence among the nations, which, again, is
inconsistent, it is said, with the principles of the Gospel
dispensation, we must again deny this last assertion, and for a
similar reason. If not inconsistent with the Gospel that the British
nation, for example, should to-day hold a position of exceptional
eminence and world-wide influence among the nations, how can it be
inconsistent with the Gospel that Israel, when repentant before God,
should be in like manner exalted of Him to national eminence and
glory?
While in itself this question may be of little consequence, yet in
another aspect it is of no small moment that we steadfastly affirm the
permanent validity of this part of the promise of the covenant with
Israel as given in this chapter. For it is not too much to say that
the logic and the exegesis which make the promise to have become void
with regard to Israel's land, if accepted, would equally justify one
in affirming the abrogation of the promise of Israel's final
repentance, if the exigencies of any eschatological theory should seem
to require it. Either both parts of this promise in ver. 42 are still
valid, or neither is now valid; and if either is still in force, the
other is in force also. These two, the promise concerning the people,
and the promise concerning the land, stand or fall together.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
_CONCERNING VOWS._
LEV. xxvii. 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 XXV. 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
(Deut. xxiii. 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" (vv. 26, 27), any
"devoted thing" (vv. 28, 29), and the tithe (vv. 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 a special vow, had been dedicated to the Lord, he might be
permitted to do so.
OF THE VOWING OF PERSONS.
xxvii. 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 thy
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 (vv. 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 this,
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 (vv. 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 persons service would be less; it is therefore fixed
(ver. 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
(ver. 7), as the feebleness of age is coming on, the rate is fifteen
shekels for the male and ten for the female.[56] In the case of a
child from one month to five years old, the rate is fixed (ver. 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 (Numb. xviii. 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.
[56] These commutation rates are so low that it is plain that
they could not have represented the actual value of the
individual's labour. The highest sum which is named--fifty
shekels--as the rate for a man from twenty to sixty years of
age, taking the shekel as 2s. 3·37_d._, or $·5474, would only
amount to £5 14_s._ 0-3/4_d._, or $27·375. Even from this alone
it is clear that, as stated above, the chief reference in these
figures must have been symbolic of a claim of God upon the
person, graded according to his capacity for service.
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 (ver. 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.
xxvii. 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 he 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
(vv. 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
(ver. 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 (ver. 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.
xxvii. 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 (vv. 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 (vv. 16-21) was the dedication to the Lord of a field which
belonged to the Israelite by inheritance; the second (vv. 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" (ver. 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
(ver. 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 (vv. 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 (xxv. 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 law (xxv. 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.
Ver. 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 (Deut. xxii. 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 (Eccl. v. 5,
6): "Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou
shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to
sin; neither say thou before the messenger [of God],[57] 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.
[57] So certainly should we render instead of "angel," in
accordance with the suggestion of the margin (R.V.). The
reference is to the priest, as Mal. ii. 7 makes very clear: "He
[the priest] is the messenger of the Lord."
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 (Matt. xv. 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 (Acts xviii. 18; xxi. 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 supererogation, 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.
xxvii. 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: 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. 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 be 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" (ver. 26); any "devoted thing" (vv. 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 (vii.
17); and, lastly, "the tithe of the land" (ver. 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 (Exod. xiii. 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 (Exod. xiii. 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.
xxvii. 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" (ver. 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 (Deut. vii. 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 (Josh. vii.), 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.
xxvii. 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 accept
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 Canaanitish 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
civilized 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[58]--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, if He had suffered them any longer to
exist?
[58] On this subject, among other authorities, see Ebrard,
"Apologetik," 2 Theil, pp. 167-90, especially p. 173.
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 centre
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 _régime_--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, when (Psalm cxxxvi. 17-22) he
praised Jehovah as One who "smote great kings, and slew famous kings,
and gave their land for an heritage, even an heritage unto Israel His
servant: for HIS MERCY endureth for ever;" a thought which is again
more formally expressed (Psalm lxii. 12) in the words: "Unto Thee, O
Lord, belongeth mercy: for Thou renderest 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" (Matt. xxv. 41); "a fierceness of fire which shall devour the
adversaries" (Heb. x. 27). And this, not merely although, but BECAUSE
God's "mercy endureth for ever."
THE LAW OF THE TITHE.
xxvi. 30-33.
"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 be 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."
Last of all these exclusions from the vow is mentioned the tithe.
"Whether of the seed of the land, or of the herd, or of the flock," it
is declared to be "holy unto the Lord;" "it is the Lord's." That
because of this it cannot be given to the Lord by a special vow,
although not formally stated, is self-evident. No man can give away
what belongs to another, or give God what He has already. In Numb.
xviii. 21 it is said that this tenth should be given "unto the
children of Levi ... for the service of the tent of meeting."
Most extraordinary is the contention of Wellhausen and others, that
since in Deuteronomy no tithe is mentioned other than of the product
of the land, therefore, because of the mention here also of a tithe of
the herd and the flock, we must infer that we have here a late
interpolation into the "priest-code," marking a time when now the
exactions of the priestly caste had been extended to the utmost limit.
This is not the place to go into the question of the relation of the
law of Deuteronomy to that which we have here; but we should rather,
with Dillmann,[59] from the same premisses argue the exact opposite,
namely, that we have here the very earliest form of the tithe law. For
that an ordinance so extending the rights of the priestly class should
have been "smuggled" into the Sinaitic laws after the days of
Nehemiah, as Wellhausen, Reuss, and Kuenen suppose, is simply
"unthinkable;"[60] while, on the other hand, when we find already in
Gen. xxviii. 22 Jacob promising unto the Lord the tenth of all that He
should give him, at a time when he was living the life of a nomad
herdsman, it is inconceivable that he should have meant "all,
_excepting_ the increase of the flocks and herds," which were his
chief possession.
[59] See "Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus," pp. 635-638.
[60] See "Undenkbar;" so Dillmann, _op. cit._, p. 638.
The truth is that the dedication of a tithe, in various forms, as an
acknowledgment of dependence upon and reverence to God, is one of the
most widely-spread and best-attested practices of the most remote
antiquity. We read of it among the Romans, the Greeks, the ancient
Pelasgians, the Carthaginians, and the Phoenicians; and in the
Pentateuch, in full accord with all this, we find not only Jacob, as
in the passage cited, but, at a yet earlier time, Abraham, more than
four hundred years before Moses, giving tithes to Melchizedek. The
law, in the exact form in which we have it here, is therefore in
perfect harmony with all that we know of the customs both of the
Hebrews and surrounding peoples, from a time even much earlier than
that of the Exodus.
Very naturally the reference to the tithe, as thus from of old
belonging to the Lord, and therefore incapable of being vowed, gives
occasion to other regulations respecting it. Like unclean animals,
houses, and lands which had been vowed, so also the tithe, or any part
of it, might be redeemed by the individual for his own use, upon
payment of the usual mulct of one-fifth additional to its assessed
value. So also it is further ordered, with special regard to the tithe
of the herd and the flock, "that whatsoever passeth under the rod,"
_i.e._, whatever is counted, as the manner was, by being made to pass
into or out of the fold under the herdsman's staff, "the tenth"--that
is, every tenth animal as in its turn it comes--"shall be holy to the
Lord." The owner was not to search whether the animal thus selected
was good or bad, nor change it, so as to give the Lord a poorer
animal, and keep a better one for himself; and if he broke this law,
then, as in the case of the unclean beast vowed, as the penalty he was
to forfeit to the sanctuary both the original and its attempted
substitute, and also lose the right of redemption.
A very practical question emerges just here, as to the continued
obligation of this law of the tithe. Although we hear nothing of the
tithe in the first Christian centuries, it began to be advocated in
the fourth century by Jerome, Augustine, and others, and, as is well
known, the system of ecclesiastical tithing soon became established as
the law of the Church. Although the system by no means disappeared
with the Reformation, but passed from the Roman into the Reformed
Churches, yet the modern spirit has become more and more adverse to
the mediæval system, till, with the progressive hostility in society
to all connection of the Church and the State, and in the Church the
development of a sometimes exaggerated voluntaryism, tithing as a
system seems likely to disappear altogether, as it has already from
the most of Christendom.
But in consequence of this, and the total severance of the Church from
the State, in the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the
necessity of securing adequate provision for the maintenance and
extension of the Church, is more and more directing the attention of
those concerned in the practical economics of the Church, to this
venerable institution of the tithe as the solution of many
difficulties. Among such there are many who, while quite opposed to
any enforcement of a law of tithing for the benefit of the Church by
the civil power, nevertheless earnestly maintain that the law of the
tithe, as we have it here, is of permanent obligation and binding on
the conscience of every Christian. What is the truth in the matter? In
particular, what is the teaching of the New Testament?
In attempting to settle for ourselves this question, it is to be
observed, in order to clear thinking on this subject, that in the law
of the tithe as here declared there are two elements--the one moral,
the other legal,--which should be carefully distinguished. First and
fundamental is the principle that it is our duty to set apart to God a
certain fixed proportion of our income. The other and--technically
speaking--_positive_ element in the law is that which declares that
the proportion to be given to the Lord is precisely one-tenth. Now,
of these two, the first principle is distinctly recognised and
reaffirmed in the New Testament as of continued validity in this
dispensation; while, on the other hand, as to the precise proportion
of our income to be thus set apart for the Lord, the New Testament
writers are everywhere silent.
As regards the first principle, the Apostle Paul, writing to the
Corinthians, orders that "on the first day of the week"--the day of
the primitive Christian worship--"every one" shall "lay by him in
store, as God hath prospered him." He adds that he had given the same
command also to the Churches of Galatia (1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2). This most
clearly gives apostolic sanction to the fundamental principle of the
tithe, namely, that a definite portion of our income should be set
apart for God. While, on the other hand, neither in this connection,
where a mention of the law of the tithe might naturally have been
expected, if it had been still binding as to the letter, nor in any
other place does either the Apostle Paul or any other New Testament
writer intimate that the Levitical law, requiring the precise
proportion of a tenth, was still in force;--a fact which is the more
noteworthy that so much is said of the duty of Christian benevolence.
To this general statement with regard to the testimony of the New
Testament on this subject, the words of our Lord to the Pharisees
(Matt. xxiii. 23), regarding their tithing of "mint and anise and
cummin"--"these ye ought to have done"--cannot be taken as an
exception, or as proving that the law is binding for this
dispensation; for the simple reason that the present dispensation had
not at that time yet begun, and those to whom He spoke were still
under the Levitical law, the authority of which He there reaffirms.
From these facts we conclude that the law of these verses, in so far
as it requires the setting apart to God of a certain definite
proportion of our income, is doubtless of continued and lasting
obligation; but that, in so far as it requires from all alike the
exact proportion of one-tenth, it is binding on the conscience no
longer.
Nor is it difficult to see why the New Testament should not lay down
this or any other precise proportion of giving to income, as a
universal law. It is only according to the characteristic usage of the
New Testament law to leave to the individual conscience very much
regarding the details of worship and conduct, which under the
Levitical law was regulated by specific rules; which the Apostle Paul
explains (Gal. iv. 1-5) by reference to the fact that the earlier
method was intended for and adapted to a lower and more immature stage
of religious development; even as a child, during his minority, is
kept under guardians and stewards, from whose authority, when he comes
of age, he is free.
But, still further, it seems to be often forgotten by those who argue
for the present and permanent obligation of this law, that it was here
for the first time formally appointed by God as a binding law, in
connection with a certain divinely instituted system of theocratic
government, which, if carried out, would, as we have seen, effectively
prevent excessive accumulations of wealth in the hands of individuals,
and thus secure for the Israelites, in a degree the world has never
seen, an equal distribution of property. In such a system it is
evident that it would be possible to exact a certain fixed and
definite proportion of income for sacred purposes, with the certainty
that the requirement would work with perfect justice and fairness to
all. But with us, social and economic conditions are so very
different, wealth is so very unequally distributed, that no such law
as that of the tithe could be made to work otherwise than unequally
and unfairly. To the very poor it must often be a heavy burden; to the
very rich, a proportion so small as to be a practical exemption.
While, for the former, the law, if insisted on, would sometimes
require a poor man to take bread out of the mouth of wife and
children, it would still leave the millionaire with thousands to spend
on needless luxuries. The latter might often more easily give
nine-tenths of his income than the former could give one-twentieth.
It is thus no surprising thing that the inspired men who laid the
foundations of the New Testament Church did not reaffirm the law of
the tithe as to the letter. And yet, on the other hand, let us not
forget that the law of the tithe, as regards the moral element of the
law, is still in force. It forbids the Christian to leave, as so
often, the amount he will give for the Lord's work, to impulse and
caprice. Statedly and conscientiously he is to "lay by him in store as
the Lord hath prospered him." If any ask how much should the
proportion be, one might say that by fair inference the tenth might
safely be taken as an _average minimum_ of giving, counting rich and
poor together. But the New Testament (2 Cor. viii. 7, 9) answers after
a different and most characteristic manner: "See that ye abound in
this grace.... For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that,
though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through
His poverty might become rich." Let there be but regular and
systematic giving to the Lord's work, under the law of a fixed
proportion of gifts to income, and under the holy inspiration of this
sacred remembrance of the grace of our Lord, and then the Lord's
treasury will never be empty, nor the Lord be robbed of His tithe.
And so hereupon the book of Leviticus closes with the formal
declaration--referring, no doubt, strictly speaking, to the
regulations of this last chapter--that "these are the commandments,
which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount
Sinai." The words as explicitly assert Mosaic origin and authority for
these last laws of the book, as the opening words asserted the same
for the law of the offerings with which it begins. The significance of
these repeated declarations respecting the origin and authority of the
laws contained in this book has been repeatedly pointed out, and
nothing further need be added here.
To sum up all:--what the Lord, in this book of Leviticus, has said,
was not for Israel alone. The supreme lesson of this law is for men
now, for the Church of the New Testament as well. For the individual
and for the nation, HOLINESS, consisting in full consecration of body
and soul to the Lord, and separation from all that defileth, is the
Divine ideal, to the attainment of which Jew and Gentile alike are
called. And the only _way_ of its attainment is through the atoning
Sacrifice, and the mediation of the High Priest appointed of God; and
the only _evidence_ of its attainment is a joyful obedience, hearty
and unreserved, to all the commandments of God. For us all it stands
written: "YE SHALL BE HOLY; FOR I, JEHOVAH, YOUR GOD, AM HOLY."
_Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
=CATHOLICISM--ROMAN AND ANGLICAN.=
By the Rev. A. M. FAIRBAIRN, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Principal of
Mansfield College, Oxford; Author of "The Place of Christ in
Modern Theology," etc. _Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. 6d._
_The Daily Chronicle_, in a Leading Article, says:
"Such a work cannot but have a deep effect."
"Dr. Fairbairn's able and striking volume.... The treatment is
throughout so thoughtful and free from narrow polemical
bias."--_Times._
"The book is certainly one every theologian must
welcome--high-minded in tone, broad in its outlook, penetrating
in its vision, and full of luminous _apercus_ on the history of
thought and of events."--_Literature._
=THE PLACE OF CHRIST IN MODERN THEOLOGY.= _Eleventh Edition. 8vo,
cloth, 12s._
"In some respects this is a great book. It strikes out a new and
generally a fresh line of argument. The story of the development
of thought during the Christian ages is a brilliant and vivid
historical sketch, and will be a most useful piece of reference
to the student."--THE DEAN OF GLOUCESTER, _in the Pall Mall
Gazette_.
"His work is, without doubt, one of the most valuable and
comprehensive contributions to theology that has been made during
this generation."--_Spectator._
"Dr. Fairbairn starts from the principle that Christian theology
must be based on the consciousness of Christ; and from the fact
that the historical Christ is only now, nineteen centuries after
His appearance on earth, being recovered for human knowledge and
faith.... A more vivid summary of Church history has never been
given. With its swift characterisation of schools and politics,
with its subtle tracings of the development of various tendencies
through the influence of their environment, of reaction, and of
polemic; with its contrasts of different systems, philosophies,
and races; with its portraits of men; with its sense of progress
and revolt--this part of Dr. Fairbairn's book is no mere annal,
but drama, vivid and full of emotion, representative of the
volume and sweep of Christianity through the
centuries."--_Speaker._
"The volume before us is the most weighty and important which he
has yet issued. His treatises entitled 'Studies in the Life of
Christ' and 'A City of God' contain much of great value; but in a
sense they gave promise of better things to come, and this
promise has been amply fulfilled ... in this very able and
learned and altogether admirable discussion on 'The Place of
Christ in Modern Theology.' ... The book is evidently one for the
times, and doubtless attention will be widely drawn to it on
account of the great importance of the subject of which it
treats, the honoured name of its author, and the conspicuous
ability, the competent learning, and the gracious spirit which it
everywhere displays."--_Scotsman._
LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.
ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES. By the late R. W. DALE, of Birmingham.
Edited by his Son, A. W. W. DALE, M.A. _Third Edition. Crown 8vo,
cloth, 6s._
"They are excellent examples of the earnest, powerful, and
closely reasoned addresses which Dr. Dale was in the habit of
giving on important occasions."--_Scotsman._
"Dr. Dale writes a brisk and vigorous style, and his blows fall
as with the clink of a hammer upon an anvil."--_Glasgow Herald._
_BY PROF. JAMES ORR._
NEGLECTED FACTORS in the STUDY of the EARLY PROGRESS of
CHRISTIANITY. By REV. JAMES ORR, D.D., Professor of Church
History in the United Presbyterian Theological College,
Edinburgh. _Crown 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d._
"An interesting volume.... The volume is a valuable contribution
to the history of the subject."--_Scotsman._
"These lectures deserve publication. They are able, learned, and
they show that Dr. Orr has the gift of research, and of looking
at things for himself. To each of these themes (the neglected
factors) he gives earnest attention, and he discusses them with
overflowing learning and with great clearness. The product is
solid, substantial, and after the thorough pattern set to us by
German writers. He has abundantly proved his case."--_Aberdeen
Free Press._
"The volume is valuable for the new light it throws on the
progress and influence of Christianity in the first three
centuries, for the fulness of its details, and for the ability
with which these are handled in working out the conclusions that
are sought to be established."--_North British Daily Mail._
_BY THE SAME AUTHOR._
THE RITSCHLIAN THEOLOGY AND THE EVANGELICAL FAITH. _Third
Edition. Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 2s. 6d._
"His volume is not a large one, but it is packed with matter, and
it embodies the well-considered results of careful and extensive
reading. It is the best English book we have on the subject.
Nothing is left unnoticed that is necessary to a proper
appreciation of this influential school of theology."--_Critical
Review._
"Professor Orr has done his work well. His treatment of
Ritschlianism is scholarly, self-contained, and lucid, and no
English student of religion in future can have any difficulty in
understanding the position of the Ritschlian school, whether at
home or abroad."--_Church Times._
"It is a surprisingly well-written book, for the subject is
supremely difficult. It is the best popular account of the great
movement that yet been seen in English."--_Expository Times._
THE UNHEEDING GOD, AND OTHER SERMONS. By the REV. THOMAS G.
SELBY. _Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth, 6s._
"It is not often, in the somewhat barren records of pulpit
literature, that such a noble and striking volume of sermons as
this is given to the public. The present volume elevates its
author to a front rank among the preachers of the time.... No
more timely discourses than these could possibly be
preached."--_Spectator._
"An excellent volume of sermons. Mr. Selby writes in a pungent
and forcible style, and has a great command of suggestive
illustrations, taken from history, literature, and science. Some
of the lines of thought opened out by him are very original, and
we especially commend the fine sermon on 'Obscure Service and the
Infinite Outlook.'"--_Glasgow Herald._
LONDON: HODDER & STOUGHTON, 27, PATERNOSTER ROW.