Matthew Henry on Leviticus 27:26–end
Here is, I. A caution given that no man should make such a jest of sanctifying things to the Lord as to sanctify any firstling to him, for that was his already by the law, Lev 27:26. Though the matter of a general vow be that which we were before obliged to, as of our sacramental covenant, yet a singular vow should be of that which we were not, in such circumstances and proportions, antecedently bound to. The law concerning the firstlings of unclean beasts (Lev 27:27) is the same with that before, Lev 27:11, Lev 27:12.
II. Things or persons devoted are here distinguished from things or persons that were only sanctified. 1. Devoted things were most holy to the Lord, and could neither revert n…
Read the whole note in the consoleJamieson-Fausset-Brown on Leviticus 27:26
Only the firstling of the beasts--These, in the case of clean beasts, being consecrated to God by a universal and standing law (Exo 13:12; Exo 34:19), could not be devoted; and in that of unclean beasts, were subject to the rule mentioned (Lev 27:11-12).
Adam Clarke on Leviticus 27:25
Shekel of the sanctuary - A standard shekel; the standard being kept in the sanctuary to try and regulate all the weights in the land by. See Gen 20:16; Gen 23:15.
John Gill on Leviticus 27:26
Only the firstlings of the beasts,.... These are excepted from being sanctified, or set apart for sacred uses, for a very good reason, suggested in the next clause:
which should be the Lord's firstling, no man shall sanctify it; it being what he has a claim upon, and ordered to be sanctified to him by a law previous to this, Exodus 13:2; wherefore to sanctify such a creature, would be to sanctify what was his before; not merely in a general sense, in which all creatures are his, but in a special sense, having in a peculiar manner required it as his; and therefore to sanctify, or vow to him, what was his before, must be trifling with him, and mocking of him:
whether it be ox, or sheep; the…
Read the whole note in the console
