Leviticus 27:26-27
This page isn't yet indexed by search engines.
This verse highlights a crucial distinction: you can't "dedicate" something that's already the Lord's by established law. It's not about offering more to God, but about recognizing His prior claim, making any attempt to vow it redundant and even a bit like "mocking" Him with things you never truly owned.
“But a firstborn of animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may dedicate; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD’s. And if it is an unclean animal, then he shall buy it back at the valuation, and add a fifth to it; or, if it is not redeemed, it shall be sold at the valuation.
English Standard Version (ESV)
After discussing how individuals, animals, houses, and land could be vowed to God, Leviticus now addresses two exceptions: things already belonging to God and things already consecrated. This verse explains that the firstborn of animals, already designated as the Lord's by a standing law, cannot be additionally vowed or dedicated. Attempting to vow what is already God's is seen as a mockery, akin to stealing from Him by pretending to give Him something you can't withhold.
Have you ever tried to give away something that was never truly yours to begin with? This verse addresses a specific situation in ancient Israel that feels like a spiritual no-no.
The core of Leviticus 27:26 is about respecting God's prior ownership. The firstborn of animals, whether clean or unclean, held a special status. From the Exodus, God had a direct claim on these firstborn creatures.
The Book of Leviticus deals with vows and offerings, but this verse introduces a crucial exception. What’s the difference between a personal pledge and an acknowledgment of divine right?
Leviticus 27 outlines how people could dedicate possessions to God through vows. However, this verse draws a clear line, distinguishing between what a person could vow and what was already God’s by an established law.
Ask a follow-up
Understand the original words
bekor · Hebrew Noun
Refers to the first male offspring of humans or animals, which was considered the property of God under the Mosaic Law. This concept emphasizes God's ownership and claim over all life, particularly following the deliverance from Egypt.
YHWH · Hebrew Proper Noun
The covenant God of Israel, the personal name revealed to Moses. It signifies the self-existent, eternal, and faithful One who enters into a covenant relationship with His people.
tame · Hebrew Adjective
Ritually unfit for ceremonial use in the sanctuary or for consumption by the people under the law. It represents a state of separation from the holy because of physical defects or prescribed religious categories.
padah · Hebrew Verb
The act of recovering property or a person by paying a price, symbolizing the restoration of what was under obligation or bondage back to its original owner or status.
This passage establishes the foundational law that the firstborn male of every animal, belonging to the Lord, was to be set apart, highlighting the existing claim God had on these animals before any vow could be made.
Numbers 18:15This verse reiterates that the firstborn of both man and beast that are offered to the Lord are most holy, reinforcing the concept that these firstlings were already consecrated and not subject to personal vows.
1 Samuel 1:11Hannah's vow to give her son Samuel to the Lord if he granted her a son illustrates the concept of dedicating a child, but it's important to note the distinction made in Leviticus 27:26: while children could be dedicated through vows (and then redeemed), the firstborn of animals could not be vowed because they already belonged to the Lord.
Deuteronomy 15:19This passage specifies that the firstborn male of cattle, both ox and sheep, was not to be worked but was to be used for sacrifice, further emphasizing its already designated sacred status and inability to be added to by a personal vow.
ellicottLeviticus 27:26: "Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD'S firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD'S."
(26) Only the firstling of the beasts. —Better, nevertheless the firstlings, &c, as this rendering also suits Leviticus 27:28 , which begins with the same particle, and which is translated in the Authorised Version, “not withstanding.” Having laid down the regulations about the four classes of objects which may be vowed to the Lord—vi…
gillLeviticus 27:26: "Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD'S firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD'S."
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…
This verse highlights a crucial distinction: you can't "dedicate" something that's already the Lord's by established law. It's not about offering more to God, but about recognizing His prior claim, making any attempt to vow it redundant and even a bit like "mocking" Him with things you never truly owned.
After discussing how individuals, animals, houses, and land could be vowed to God, Leviticus now addresses two exceptions: things already belonging to God and things already consecrated. This verse explains that the firstborn of animals, already designated as the Lord's by a standing law, cannot be additionally vowed or dedicated. Attempting to vow what is already God's is seen as a mockery, akin to stealing from Him by pretending to give Him something you can't withhold.
After discussing how individuals, animals, houses, and land could be vowed to God, Leviticus now addresses two exceptions: things already belonging to God and things already consecrated. This verse explains that the firstborn of animals, already designated as the Lord's by a standing law, cannot be additionally vowed or dedicated. Attempting to vow what is already God's is seen as a mockery, akin to stealing from Him by pretending to give Him something you can't withhold.
"“But a firstborn of animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may dedicate; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD’s. And if it is an unclean animal, then he shall buy it back at the valuation, and add a fifth to it; or, if it…" — This verse highlights a crucial distinction: you can't "dedicate" something that's already the Lord's by established law. It's not about offering more to God, but about recognizing His prior claim,…
Get the original Greek and Hebrew, verse-by-verse context, and related passages inside the app.
Last reviewed October 2026
