|
|
Vows
Mar 20, 2014 2:51:01 GMT
Post by gsmithb on Mar 20, 2014 2:51:01 GMT
If we understand bro. Mansfield, the children of Israel could offer more to God than was required. There was a written rule to go by as stated in chapter 27 of Leviticus. Males and females could give what they wanted to give or make a vow, but it had to be redeemed according to God's law. We might not be understanding this correctly, so please comment.
|
|
Lee
Administrator 
Posts: 1,047
|
Vows
Mar 20, 2014 3:03:09 GMT
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2014 3:03:09 GMT
GIFTS TO GOD
There are moments in every spiritual man’s life when gratitude yearns for special vent of utterance—times when he feels strongly what David said on a certain occasion, “I will not offer unto the Lord my God that which hath cost me nothing”, Words in a sense cost him nothing: he longs to do something more than offer praise. It is not that he supposes God can be enriched by anything he can give, or that he can put God under obligation, or that he can establish a claim to His favour by anything he can do: for such a man earnestly recognizes above all things what David also said when he handed over incom-putable treasure of gold and silver to the divine service: “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee … . All this store that we have prepared… cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own” (1 Chron. 29:14–16). Yet he feels an intensity of gratitude that can only find satisfactory expression in deeds of self-deprivation—above and beyond the freewill and thank offerings of sacrifice provided for in the routine service of the tabernacle.
For such times, the law made suitable provision. A man might make “a singular vow” concerning anything not already under divine claim (Lev. 27:2). He might “sanctify to God” anything under his control: himself; an animal (clean or unclean); a house; a field; or part of a field. All these particulars are set forth in Lev. 27. He might not consecrate the firstborn of any beast, because that was already the Lord’s, nor for the same reason could he consecrate “the tithe of the land, whether seed or fruit”, Any object lawfully consecrated to God might be purchased back again on payment of a sum to be fixed according to what might be called the tariff of the tabernacle. In that case, the money paid was reckoned as the thing that had been consecrated. This was a convenient arrangement both for the man making the vow, and the priests into whose hands the consecrated things might come for administration. It might often happen that a thing given to God might be essential to the proper working of a man’s affairs; or that it might not be capable of being turned to any use in the hands of the priests. A commutation in money relieved the transaction in such cases from its embarrassments, while at the same time preserving the principle of the inviolability of vows.
Roberts, R. (1987). The Law of Moses (electronic ed.). Birmingham, UK: The Christadelphian.
|
|
