Page images
PDF
EPUB

thinks, is evident from his declaration "The LORD hath anointed me (as THE CHRIST) to preach the Gospel to the poor: he hath sent me as SHILOH, THE APOSTLE') to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and restoration of sight to the blind; to set at liberty the bruised; to proclaim the acceptable year of THE LORD." (Luke iv. 18, 19.)

1 Dr. Hales's Analysis, vol. ii. book i. p. 279. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. p. 619. The best practical illustration we have seen, of the analogy between the Mosaic jubilee and the Gospel, is to be found in the reverend and learned Dr. Claudius Buchanan's "Three Sermons on the Jubilee," celebrated on the 25th October, 1809, on the occasion of our late venerable Sovereign's entering on the fiftieth year of his reign.

CHAPTER V.

SACRED OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES.

SECTION I.

OF OATHS AND VOWS.

1. Of Oaths.-II. Nature of Vows-how far acceptable to God.III. Requisites essential to the validity of a Vow.-IV. Different sorts of Vows.-1. The Cherem or irremissible Vow.-2. Other Vows that might be redeemed.-Of the Nazareate.

I. THE person, who confirmed his assertion by a voluntary Oath, pronounced the same with his right hand elevated. Sometimes the swearer omitted the imprecation, as if he were afraid, and shuddered to utter it, although it was, from other sources, sufficiently well understood. (Gen. xiv. 22, 23. Ezek. xvii. 18.) Sometimes the imprecation was, as follows; "This and more than this may God do to me." (2 Sam. iii. 9. 35. Ruth i. 17. 1 Kings ii. 23. 2 Kings vi. 31.) Sometimes the swearer merely said; "Let God be a witness ;" and sometimes affirmed saying; "As surely as God liveth." (Jer. xlii. 5. Ruth iii. 13. 1 Sam. xiv. 45. xx. 3. 21.)

The remarks which have now been made, apply to the person, who uttered the oath himself of his own accord. When an oath was exacted, whether by a judge or another, the person who exacted it put the oath in form; and the person to whom it was put, responded by saying, N., so let it be: or gave his response in other expressions of like import, such as du eras. (Numb. v. 19-22. 1 Kings xxii. 16. Deut. xxvii. 15-26.) Sometimes the exacter of the oath merely used the following adjuration, viz. I adjure you by the living God to answer, whether this thing be so or not. And the person sworn accordingly made answer to the point inquired of. (Numb. v. 22. Matt. xxvi. 63.) It should be remarked here, though the formulary of assent on the part of the respondent to an oath was frequently AMEN, AMEN, that this formulary did not always imply an oath, but, in some instances, was merely a protestation. As the oath was an appeal to God (Lev. xix. 12. Deut. vi. 13.), the taking of a false oath was deemed a heinous crime, and perjury, accordingly, was forbidden in those words, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, that is, shalt not call God to witness in pretended confirmation of a falsehood. (Exod. xx. 6.)

It was a common thing in Egypt in the time of Joseph, to swear by the life of the king (Gen. xlii. 15.): and this practice prevailed

subsequently among the Hebrews. (1 Sam. xxv. 26. 2 Sam. xi. 11. xiv. 19. comp. Psal. lxiii. 11.) The Hebrews also swore by cities and consecrated places, such as Hebron, Shilo, and Jerusalem. A person sometimes swore by himself and sometimes by the life of the person before whom he spoke, viz. by myself,, by thee, or by thy life. (1 Sam. i. 26. 2 Kings ii. 2. Gen. xlii. 15. Josh. vii. 8. Judg. vi. 13. 15. 1 Kings iii. 17. 26.) In some instances, persons adjured others by the beasts of the field (Sol. Song, ii. 7.), a sort of adjuration, which, to the present day, makes its appearance in the writings of the Arabian poets.1

The Jews, in the time of Christ, were in the habit of swearing by the altar, by Jerusalem, by heaven, by the earth, by themselves, by their heads, by the gold of the temple, by sacrifices, &c. Because the name of God was not mentioned in these oaths, they considered them as imposing but small, if any obligation. And we, accordingly, find, that the Saviour takes occasion to inveigh, in decided terms, against such arts of deception. (Matt. v. 33-37. xxiii. 16-22.) It is against oaths of this kind, and these alone, (not against an oath uttered in sincerity,) that he expresses his displeasure, and prohibits them. This is clear, since he himself consented to take upon him the solemnity of an oath (Matt. xxvi. 63.); and since Paul himself, in more than one instance, utters an adjuration. Compare Rom. ix. 1. 2 Cor. i. 23.

In the primitive periods of their history, the Hebrews religiously observed an oath, (Josh. ix. 14, 15.) but we find, that, in later times, they were often accused by the prophets of perjury. After the Captivity, the Jews became again celebrated for the scrupulous observance of what they had sworn to, but corruption soon increased among them: they revived the old forms, the words without the meaning; and acquired among all nations the reputation of perjurers.3

II. A vow is a religious engagement or promise voluntarily undertaken by a person towards Almighty God. "Unless the Deity has expressly declared his acceptance of human vows, it can at best be but a very doubtful point, whether they are acceptable in his sight; and if they are not so, we cannot deduce from them the shadow of an obligation; for it is not from a mere offer alone, but from an offer of one party, and its acceptance by another, that the obligation to fulfil an engagement arises. The divine acceptance of vows, we can by no means take for granted; considering that from our vows God can derive no benefit, and that, in general, they are of just as little use to man.' 994 In Matt. xv. 4-6. and Mark vii. 9-13. Christ himself notices the vow of Korban (already considered), which was common

1 Consult the Koran, Sura lxxxv. 1-3. lxxxvi. 1. 11-13. lxxxix. 1-4. ix. 1 -4. xci. 1-8. &c.

2 Martialis Epigramat. XI. 95.

3 Mr. Upham's Translation of Jahn's Archeologia Biblica, pp. 494, 495.

4 Michaelis's Commentaries on the Law of Moses, vol. ii. pp. 263–266.

[blocks in formation]

in his time, and by which a man consecrated what he was bound to apply to the support of his parents; and he declares it to be so impious that we cannot possibly hold it to be acceptable to God. In the New Testament, no vows whatever are obligatory, because God has no where declared that he will accept them from Christians. But the people of Israel had such a declaration from God himself; although even they were not counselled or encouraged to make vows. In consequence of this declaration, the vows of the Israelites were binding; and that not only in a moral view, but according to the national law; and the priest was authorised to enforce and estimate their fulfilment. The principal passages relating to this point, are Lev. xxvii. Numb. Xxx. and Deut. xxiii. 18. 21, 22, 23.

III. In order to render a vow valid, Moses requires,

1. That it be actually uttered with the mouth, and not merely made in the heart. In Numb. xxx. 3. 7. 9. 13. and Deut. xxiii. 24. he repeatedly calls it the expression of the lips, or, what has gone forth from the mouth; and the same phrase occurs in Psalm lxvi. 14. If, therefore, a person had merely made a vow in his heart, without letting it pass his lips, it would seem as if God would not accept such a vow; regarding it only as a resolution to vow, but not as a vow itself.

This limitation is humane, and necessary to prevent much anxiety in conscientious people. If a vow made in the heart be valid, we shall often experience difficulty in distinguishing whether what we thought of was a bare intention, or a vow actually completed. Here, therefore, just as in a civil contract with our neighbour, words-uttered words-are necessary, to prevent all uncertainty.

2. The party making the vow must be in his own power and competent to undertake the obligation. Therefore the vows of minors were void, unless they were ratified by the express or tacit consent of their parents. In like manner, neither married women nor slaves could oblige themselves by vow, unless they were ratified by their husbands or masters.

3. The things vowed to be devoted to God must be honestly obtained. It is well known, that in antient times, many public prostitutes dedicated to their gods a part of their impure earnings. This is most expressly forbidden by Moses. (Deut. xxxiii. 18.)

IV. There are two sorts of vows mentioned in the Jewish Law, viz. 1. Then (CHEREM), which was the most solemn of all, and was accompanied with a form of execration, and which could not be redeemed; and, 2. The 773 (NeDeRiM), or common vows.

1. The cherem is no where mentioned by Moses; nor does he specify by what solemnities or expressions it was distinguished from other vows, but pre-supposes all this as already well known. The species of cherem with which we are best acquainted, was the previous devotement to God of hostile cities, against which they intended to proceed with extreme severity; and that with a view the more to inflame the minds of the people to war. In such cases,

not only were all the inhabitants put to death, but also, according as the terms of the vow declared, no booty was made by any Israelite; the beasts were slain; what would not burn, as gold, silver, and other metals, was added to the treasure of the sanctuary; and every thing else, with the whole city, burnt, and an imprecation pronounced upon any attempt that should ever be made to rebuild it. Of this the history of Jericho (Josh. vi. 17-19. 21-24. and vii. 1. 12-26.) furnishes the most remarkable example. In Moses' lifetime we find a similar vow against the king of Arad. (Numb. xxi. 1-3.)

If an Israelitish city introduced the worship of strange gods, it was (as we have already seen) in like manner, to be devoted or consecrated to God, and to remain un-rebuilt for ever. (Deut. xiii. 16-18.) Jephthah's dedication of his daughter is generally supposed to have been a cherem: but we have shown in another part of this work, that he did not sacrifice her. The text (Judg. xi. 30.) says that Jephthah vowed a vow (, NEDER) unto the Lord, and again (verse 39.) that he did with her according to his vow (73). There is no word in either of these passages, that either expresses or implies a cherem.

2. The common vows were divided into two sorts, viz. 1. Vows of dedication, and, 2. Vows of self-interdiction or abstinence.

i. The (NEDER) or vow, in the stricter sense of the word, was when a person engaged to do any thing, as, for instance, to bring an offering to God; or otherwise to dedicate any thing unto him. Things vowed in this way, were, 1. Unclean beasts. These might be estimated by the priest, and redeemed by the vower, by the addition of one-fifth to the value. (Lev. xxvii. 11-13.)-2. Clean beasts used for offerings. Here there was no right of redemption; nor could the beasts be exchanged for others under the penalty of both being forfeited, and belonging to the Lord. (Lev. xxvii. 9, 10.)-3. Lands and houses. These had the privilege of valuation and redemption. (Lev. xxvii. 14-24.)-To these we have to add, 4. The person of the vower himself, with the like privilege. (Lev. xxvii. 1-8.) To this species of vow Michaelis thinks the second tenths may have belonged, as Moses no where speaks of them as a new institution. They most probably derived their origin from the vow made by Jacob, which is recorded in Gen. xxviii. 22.

ii. Vows of self-interdiction or self-denial were, when a person engaged to abstain from any wine, food, or any other thing. These are especially distinguished by Moses from other,vows in Numb. xxx.,

AssOR AL) אסר על נפש Assam), or) אסר and are there termed

NePHеSH), that is, a bond upon the soul, or person, a self-interdiction from some desire of nature, or of the heart, or, in other words, a vow of abstinence, particularly from eating and drinking. Among this species of vows may be classed those of the Nazareate or Nazaritism; which, Michaelis is of opinion, was not instituted by Moses, but was of more antient, and probably of Egyptian origin; the Hebrew legislator giving certain injunctions for the better regulation and

« PreviousContinue »