|
Author
|
Topic: Leviticus 27:10, 33
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
bhoup...
I don't know why it is worded that way - it is confusing. Could be part of the problem of translating from ancient Hebrew into English. I think we understand the main message, though, that once something has been given to the Lord, it cannot be bought back. If they didn't use money back then, they would buy, that is redeem, something through trade.
It's easier to understand the Old Covenant when we bear in mind that it is a foreshadowing of the New Covenant and the work of Christ. Much of the Old Covenant is symbolic.
This is from the Parsons Bible Dictionary.
Redemption
THE PURCHASE BACK OF SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN LOST, BY THE PAYMENT OF A RANSOM. THE GREEK WORD SO RENDERED IS apolutrosis, a word occurring nine times in Scripture, and always with the idea of a ransom or price paid, i.e., redemption by a lutron (see Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). There are instances in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament of the use of lutron in man’s relation to man (Lev. 19:20; 25:51; Ex. 21:30; Num. 35:31, 32; Isa. 45:13; Prov. 6:35), and in the same sense of man’s relation to God (Num. 3:49; 18:15).
Eden...
It's difficult to imagine things from that time and culture. A modern day example, (I think, but I'm not sure), would be a person who vows to tithe a certain amount of money each month, but then actually gives a lesser amount. This would be an example of offering something good, but then substituting it with something bad. I think people make promises to God all the time that they don't keep.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
bhoup
New Member
Member # 7044
|
posted
Thanks to you both! That does shed some light on it but yet I am still confused. The fact still remains that it commands no substitutes, but yet immediately then turns and says "but" if you do have a substitute...Why was a substitute needed? Did they vow one to God and then realize later that it had a blemish?
Also, quote:
The expression “it shall be holy” unquestionably implies that an animal of this kind could not be redeemed
confuses me because of the word redeemed. What exactly does that mean?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hi, Carol, Swenson, I found this phrase in Delitzsch's comment in your post a bit puzzling quote:
When animals were vowed, of the cattle that were usually offered in sacrifice, everything that was given to Jehovah of these (i.e., dedicated to Him by vowing) was to be holy and not changed, i.e., exchanged, a good animal for a bad, or a bad one for a good.
Most of the time, if not all of the time, people wanted to substitute a bad animal for a good animal. What was the occasion or likelihood of someone wanting to substitute a bad animal for a good animal, if I may ask?
However, your good post did also stimulate me to say the following.
Luke 14
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant returned and showed his lord all these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in here the poor and the maimed and the halt and the blind.
24 For I say to you, That none of those men who were bidden shall taste of my supper.
Matthew 21
43 Therefore say I to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation that shall bring forth the fruits thereof.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spoke of them.
Matthew 8
11 For I say to you, That many shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
love, eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
bhoup...
I found an answer for you. I hope it helps. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Vol. 1: Pentateuch
Leviticus 27:9-10
When animals were vowed, of the cattle that were usually offered in sacrifice, everything that was given to Jehovah of these (i.e., dedicated to Him by vowing) was to be holy and not changed, i.e., exchanged, a good animal for a bad, or a bad one for a good. But if such an exchange should be made, the animal first dedicated and the one substituted were both to be holy (vv 9, 10). The expression “it shall be holy” unquestionably implies that an animal of this kind could not be redeemed; but if it was free from faults, it was offered in sacrifice: if, however, it was not fit for sacrifice on account of some blemish, it fell to the portion of the priests for their maintenance like the first-born of cattle (cf. v. 33).
So...
That which had been given over to the Lord could not be taken back. When a blemished animal (us) was unacceptable to the Lord, a perfect substitute (Jesus) could be offered instead, but the blemished animal still belonged to the Lord. (I'm very glad about that, aren't you?)
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bhoup
New Member
Member # 7044
|
posted
I don't quite understand this...
These particular verses are speaking about animals that are being vowed to God. It says that they are not to substitute, BUT if they do substitute...
Why does it command no substitutes but then seem to allow for one?
If you go back into chapter 26 it is about obedience and blessings OR disobedience and punishment. Why does that seem to change in this chapter?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
