Leviticus 27:27 · Bible study
Leviticus 27:27 Commentary: Study: Redeeming the Unclean Firstborn
Hebrew · 7 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Examine the law for redeeming an unclean firstborn animal: its modification of Exodus 13, and the principles of vow fulfillment and sanctuary support.
Research Summary
- Meaning: The law provides for the redemption of a firstborn unclean animal by paying its valuation plus 20%, or selling it at valuation if not redeemed, thus modifying earlier Exodus legislation to increase sanctuary revenue.
- Key words: “Redeem” (H6299, פָּדָה) and “redeemed” (H1350, גָּאַל in Niphal) highlight the transaction; “fifth” (H2549, חֲמִישִׁי) is a standard surcharge; “sell” (H4376, מָכַר) in Niphal indicates the alternative sale for sanctuary benefit.
- Main debate: Whether this applies only to firstlings (Wesley, Keil) or also to any unclean animal vowed to God (Gill).
- Theological theme: God’s prior claim on what is sacred; the cost of redeeming vows; the sanctuary’s provision through economic regulations.
- Best use: Preaching and teaching on the seriousness of vows, the development of Old Testament law, and God’s practical care for the temple system.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
But if it is among the unclean animals, then he may redeem it according to your valuation and add a fifth of its value. If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation.
WEB World English Bible 2000
If it is an unclean animal, then he shall buy it back according to your valuation, and shall add to it the fifth part of it; or if it isn’t redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation.
KJV King James Version 1769
And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
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.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
And if among the unclean beasts, then he hath ransomed it at thy valuation, and he hath added its fifth to it; and if it is not redeemed, then it hath been sold at thy valuation.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
But if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall ransom it according to thy valuation, and shall add a fifth of it thereto; and if it be not redeemed, it shall be sold according to thy valuation.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And if it be an unclean beast, he that offereth it shall redeem it, according to thy estimation, and shall add the fifth part of the price. If he will not redeem it, it shall be sold to another for how much soever it was estimated by thee.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Mas si fuere de los animales inmundos, lo redimirán conforme á tu estimación, y añadirán sobre ella su quinto: y si no lo redimieren, se venderá conforme á tu estimación.
Mas se for dos animais impuros, o resgatarão conforme tua avaliação, e acrescentarão sobre ela seu quinto: e se não o resgatarem, se venderá conforme tua avaliação.
S’ il s’agit d’ un animal impur, on le rachètera au prix de ton estimation, en y ajoutant un cinquième; s’ il n’ est pas racheté, il sera vendu d’ après ton estimation.
Ist es aber unreines Vieh, so soll man's lösen nach seinem Werte, und darübergeben den Fünften. Will er's aber nicht lösen, so verkaufe man's nach seinem Werte.
Doch is het van een onrein beest, hij zal dat lossen naar uw schatting, en zal zijn vijfde deel daarboven toedoen; en indien het niet gelost wordt, zo zal het verkocht worden, naar uw schatting.
E se si tratta di un animale impuro, lo si riscatterà al prezzo della tua stima, aggiungendovi un quinto; se non è riscattato, sarà venduto al prezzo della tua stima.
A jeźliby z bydląt nieczystych było, odkupi je według szacunku twego, i przyda piątą część nad to; a jeźliby go nie odkupiono, niechże sprzedane będzie według szacunku twego.
Если же скот нечистый, то должно выкупить по оценке твоей и приложить к тому пятую часть; если не выкупят, то должно продать по оценке твоей.
若 是不潔淨 的牲畜生的，就要按你所估定的價值 加 上 五分之一 贖回；若 不 贖回，就要按你所估定的價值 賣了。
And if it is an unclean beast, then the owner of it may give money to get it back, in agreement with the value fixed by you, by giving a fifth more; or if it is not taken back, let it be given for money in agreement with your valuing.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Leviticus 27:27
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
The verse gives the procedure for a firstborn unclean animal, one that belongs to the Lord by birth (v.26) but cannot be offered in sacrifice. Commentators agree that this regulation revises the earlier law in Exodus 13:13 and 34:20. There, the firstborn of an ass was redeemed with a lamb or its neck was broken. Here, monetary redemption is allowed at the priest's valuation plus one-fifth (20%) of that value. The Cambridge Bible notes that this is more favorable to the priests and the sanctuary treasury. Keil and Delitzsch concur, seeing the change as a modification that increased sanctuary revenue. Gill takes a different view on scope: he argues the verse covers any unclean animal sanctified by vow, not just firstlings, citing the context of voluntary dedications. Wesley explicitly links it to the firstborn of an unclean beast. All the supplied sources treat the principle of redemption with an added fifth as a standard penalty for reclaiming what is devoted to God. The alternative, sale at valuation without the surcharge, ensures the sanctuary still gains even if the owner chooses not to redeem.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Firstlings only view: Context of v.26 (firstlings already belong to God) and earlier regulations in Exodus 13:13 and 34:20 focus on firstborn animals. Supported by Wesley and Keil.
- Any vowed unclean animal view: Gill argues the context of vows and the phrase “if it is an unclean animal” does not restrict to firstlings; it can include any unclean animal sanctified by a vow for sanctuary repair.
What is clear: The verse provides a legal mechanism for redeeming an unclean animal that cannot be sacrificed but is dedicated to God, requiring a valuation plus an additional fifth or sale at valuation for the sanctuary's benefit.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of the regulation: firstlings only or any vowed unclean animal | The verse is set after v.26, which forbids dedicating firstlings because they already belong to God. The immediate context thus points to firstborn animals. | Gill argues this covers any unclean animal that was sanctified by a vow, not just firstlings, while Wesley and Keil specifically identify it as the firstborn of an unclean beast. |
| Relationship to the Exodus law (Exodus 13:13) | Both laws provide a way to handle the firstborn of an unclean animal that cannot be sacrificed. Both affirm that God owns the firstborn. | The earlier law requires a lamb as substitute or death of the animal. The Leviticus law replaces that with a monetary payment plus 20%, which the Cambridge Bible calls more favorable to the priests. Some see continuity, others see a relaxation. |
| Significance of the added fifth | The surcharge is a standard penalty for redeeming vowed property (Leviticus 27:13,15,19,31). It compensates for the broken dedication and adds to sanctuary revenue. | No debate among supplied sources; all treat it as a standard fixed addition. |
| Role of the priest’s valuation | The priest sets the value based on the sanctuary shekel. The valuation is authoritative and binding. | No debate supplied; the mechanism is taken as straightforward. |
Historical & Cultural Context
This verse sits within the Priestly Code (chapters 25, 27), a body of legislation likely shaped during the exile or early post-exilic period. The Priestly writers are concerned with the sanctuary's income, the holiness of vows, and the orderly administration of God's property. The earlier law in Exodus 13:13 commanded: “Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you will not redeem it, then you shall break its neck.” That law assumed a pastoral economy where a lamb was the standard substitute. Leviticus 27:27 replaces that animal-for-animal exchange with a cash payment plus one-fifth. This shift reflects a more monetized temple economy, where revenue for maintenance and priestly support mattered.
The “fifth part” (20%) was a standard penalty in vow redemption passages (Leviticus 27:13, 15, 19, 31). It functioned as compensation for breaking a sacred commitment. The valuation itself was set by the priest according to the sanctuary shekel (v.25), a fixed weight standard. The unclean animal could not be sacrificed, so the only way to honor the dedication was through its monetary equivalent. If the owner was unwilling or unable to pay the surcharge, the animal was sold at the base valuation to a third party. This kept the proceeds for sacred use without forcing the owner into an unaffordable obligation. The law thus balances divine claim with human practicality.
Textual Notes
The supplied sources note no significant textual variants for Leviticus 27:27. The Hebrew text appears stable across manuscripts and versions. The LXX and Vulgate follow the Masoretic reading closely. Lange’s commentary provides grammatical notes on the form of the noun for “valuation,” but does not indicate any variant in the verse itself.
Reception History
Jewish commentators connected this law to the redemption of the firstborn ass in Exodus 13:13, interpreting the added fifth as compensation for the sanctuary when a substitution could not be made. Christian interpreters have drawn moral lessons about the cost of broken vows and the proper attitude toward God’s claims. The principle of paying a penalty beyond the base value influenced later church teaching on restitution for sins against sacred things. Across traditions, the verse has been seen as an example of God’s care for the practical needs of the temple and the seriousness of human promises made to Him.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God’s prior claim. The firstborn already belongs to Him. Our vows and dedications must recognize that we cannot give what is already His except through proper redemption.
- Redemption costs extra. Reclaiming what is vowed to God requires paying its full value plus a fifth. This teaches that honoring our commitments to God is not cheap. It demands sacrifice above and beyond.
- The sanctuary still benefits. Even if we do not redeem, the animal is sold at valuation. God’s work does not suffer because of our refusal or inability to pay the surcharge.
Five-point outline
- The firstling of an unclean beast cannot be offered, but it still belongs to God.
- The owner has the option to redeem it by paying the priest’s valuation plus 20%.
- Redemption is a choice, but it comes with a cost that acknowledges the sacred nature of the vow.
- If the owner does not redeem, the animal is sold at the base price, and the proceeds go to the sanctuary.
- The entire process underscores that God is not served by empty promises. He is honored by costly dedication.
Illustration hooks
- The restocking fee. When you return an item, the store often charges a fee. It is not a penalty for wrongdoing; it covers the cost of the transaction. The added fifth works similarly. It compensates for the disruption of a sacred dedication.
- Backing out of a donation pledge. Many charities ask you to honor a pledge you made. If you withdraw, they lose. Leviticus 27:27 shows that God’s sanctuary does not lose, either you pay extra to keep the animal, or the sanctuary sells it at full value.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Does God really need my money? Why add an extra charge?
- What if I made a promise to God that I now regret or cannot keep? Does this law help me?
- Is this just an ancient economic rule, or does it teach something about my worship today?
Leading a Discussion
This small-group guide examines a specific Old Testament law that might seem distant, yet reveals important principles about how God treats our promises. Read Leviticus 27:27 in its context (vv.26, 31). As you work through the questions, consider both the historical setting and the heart attitudes behind the law.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What problem does this verse address? Why can’t the animal simply be offered as a sacrifice?
- Interpretation: Why does the law require an extra fifth when redeeming the animal? What does that “premium” communicate about the seriousness of vows?
- Interpretation: Compare Exodus 13:13 with this verse. How did the redemption requirement change, and what does the change suggest about the development of Israel’s worship system?
- Interpretation: What does the option to sell the animal at valuation (without the surcharge) tell us about the sanctuary’s needs and God’s provision?
- Application: In what ways do we still “redeem” things we have dedicated to God, withdrawing a pledge of time, money, or service?
- Application: How does this law challenge our view of generosity? Is it about giving our leftovers, or more?
- Application: What does “adding a fifth” teach us about the cost of following God, even when we fail to keep our commitments perfectly?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Leviticus 27:11 | If it is any unclean animal, of which they do not offer as an offering to Yahweh, then he shall set the animal before the priest; |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
7 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
For Cambridge Bible Schools, the distinctive point is that Leviticus's law on redeeming an unclean firstling is more favorable to the priests than Exodus's rule. In Exodus the redemption could be made with a lamb, a less valuable animal, but Leviticus requires a full valuation plus a fifth extra.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note explains that if an unclean animal is vowed, the owner may redeem it by paying the priest’s valuation plus one-fifth. If not redeemed, it is simply sold at that same valuation.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill clarifies that this rule does not apply to the firstborn of unclean animals, which were redeemed with a lamb. It addresses animals vowed for sanctuary repairs. The owner may redeem them at the priest's valuation plus a fifth, or they are sold to another at the valuation without the fifth.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch notes that the vow law excluded things already required by law, such as firstborn clean animals, which belonged to the Lord automatically. For unclean firstborn animals, this regulation modified the earlier command to redeem or kill by instead requiring a priest's valuation plus a fifth, increasing the sanctuary's revenue.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange sees this chapter as a call to manly, personal piety: the keeping of one's word to God is a matter of covenant faithfulness, not mere ritual. He emphasizes that vows are voluntary but once made must be kept with complete honesty, opposing every form of evasion or laxity in religious duty.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry warns against a careless approach to vows: no one should treat sanctifying something to the Lord as a jest by offering a firstling, for that already belongs to God by law. A meaningful vow gives what is not already owed, distinguishing devoted things from what is holy by command.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley clarifies a specific case: a firstborn unclean animal cannot be vowed as a firstborn nor offered as a sacrifice because it is unclean. The only lawful alternatives are to redeem it or sell it, with the proceeds given to the priests or the Lord's treasury.