Leviticus 27:29

None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed,.... This is said, not of such men as are devoted to the Lord, as in the preceding verse; for it is not said here as there, "none

Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.

Of men, not by men, as some would elude it; but of men, for it is manifest both from this and the foregoing verses, that men here are not the persons devoting, but devoted. Quest. Was it then lawful for any man or men thus to devote another person to the Lord, and in pursuance of such vow to put him to death? Answ. This was unquestionably lawful, and a duty in some cases, when persons have been devoted to destruction either by God’ s sentence, as idolaters, , the Canaanites, , the Amalekites, ,26, Benhadad, ; or by men, in pursuance of such a sentence of God, as ,3 31:17; or for any crime of a high nature, as . But this is not to be generally understood, as some have taken it, as if a Jew might by virtue of this text devote his child or his servant to the Lord, and thereby oblige himself to put them to death, which peradventure was Jephthah’ s error. For this is expressly limited to all that a man hath, or which is his, i.e. which he hath a power over. But the Jews had no power over the lives of their children or servants, but were directly forbidden to take them away, by that great command, Thou shalt do no murder. And seeing he that killed his servant casually by a blow with a rod was surely to be punished, as is said , it could not be lawful wilfully and intentionally to take away his life upon pretence of any such vow as this. But for the Canaanites, Amalekites, &c., God, the undoubted Lord of all men’ s lives, gave to the Israelites a power over their persons and lives, and a command to put them to death. And this verse may have a special respect to them, or such as them. And although the general subject of this and the former verse be one and the same, yet there are two remarkable differences to this purpose: 1. The verb is active , and the agent there expressed, that a man shall devote; but it is passive , and the agent undetermined, which shall be devoted, to wit, by God, or men in conformity to God’ s revealed will. 2. The devoted person or thing is only to be sold or redeemed, and said to be most holy, ; but here it is to be put to death, and this belongs only to men, and those such as either were or should be devoted in manner now expressed.

Leviticus 27:29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; [but] shall surely be put to death.Ver. 29. None devoted,] sc., To destruction: as were the Amalekites; Canaanites; Jerichuntines.

(29) None devoted, which shall be devoted of men.—Better, Every one banned, which shall be banned of men, that is, every one banned from amongst men, or every human being banned, is not to be redeemed. Like the cattle and the patrimonial estates, when once devoted to God by a vow of banning, the man thus banned by a vow comes irretrievably under the class of “most holy unto the Lord,” or one irrevocably withdrawn from the power of man. But shall surely be put to death.—Not as a sacrifice to God, but, on the contrary, to be removed out of His sight. This is the apparent import of the passage, and seems to be confirmed by the melancholy narrative of Jephtha and his daughter (Judges 11:30). This seems to have been the interpretation put on the law in question during the second Temple, since it is embodied in the Chaldee Versions, which render the verse as follows: “Every vow that shall be vowed of man, shall not be redeemed with money, but with burnt offerings and with hallowed victims, and with supplications for mercy before the Lord, because such are to be put to death.” It is, however, supposed that this Awful vow of banning could only be exercised on notorious malefactors and idolaters as dangerous to the faith of the Israelites, that it could not be made by any private individual on his own responsibility, and that when such cases occurred the community or the Sanhedrin carried out the ban as an act of judicial necessity, thus showing it to be “most holy unto the Lord.” Accordingly, Leviticus 27:28-29 treat of two different cases. The former regulates objects “banned unto the Lord,” which differs from the vow of dedication discussed in Leviticus 27:2-8 only in so far that it is unredeemable, whilst Leviticus 27:29 regulates the banning enacted by the law itself (Exodus 22:19), or pronounced by the court of justice on a man who is irretrievably to be put to death.

Verse 29. Which shall be devoted of men] Every man who is devoted shall surely be put to death; or, as some understand it, be the Lord's property, or be employed in his service, till death. The law mentioned in these two verses has been appealed to by the enemies of Divine revelation as a proof, that under the Mosaic dispensation human sacrifices were offered to God; but this can never be conceded. Had there been such a law, it certainly would have been more explicitly revealed, and not left in the compass of a few words only, where the meaning is very difficult to be ascertained; and the words themselves differently translated by most interpreters. That there were persons, devoted to destruction under the Mosaic dispensation, is sufficiently evident, for the whole Canaanitish nations were thus devoted by the Supreme Being himself, because the cup of their iniquity was full; but that they were not sacrificed to God, the whole history sufficiently declares. Houbigant understands the passage as speaking of these alone; and says, Non alios licebat anathemate voveri, quam Chananaeos, quos jusserat Deus ad internecionem deleri. "It was not lawful to devote any persons to death but the Canaanites, whom God had commanded to be entirely extirpated." This is perfectly correct; but he might have added that it was because they were the most impure idolaters, and because the cup of their iniquity was full. These God commanded to be put to death; and who can doubt his right to do so, who is the Maker of man, and the Fountain of justice? But what has this to do with human sacrifices? Just nothing. No more than the execution of an ordinary criminal, or a traitor, in the common course of justice, has to do with a sacrifice to God. In the destruction of such idolaters, no religious formality whatever was observed; nor any thing that could give the transaction even the most distant semblance of a sacrifice. In this way Jericho was commanded to be destroyed, Joshua 6:17, and the Amalekites, Deuteronomy 25:19; 1 Samuel 15:3: but in all these cases the people commanded to be destroyed were such sinners as God's justice did not think proper to spare longer. And has not every system of law the same power? And do we not concede such power to the civil magistrate, for the welfare of the state? God, who is the sovereign arbiter of life and death, acts here in his juridical and legislative capacity; but these are victims to justice, not religious sacrifices. It may be necessary just farther to note that two kinds of vows are mentioned in this chapter: - 1. The נדר neder, (See Clarke on Leviticus 27:2,) which comprehends all those things which, when once devoted, might be redeemed at a certain price, according to the valuation of the priest. 2. The חרם cherem, those things vowed to God of which there remained no power of redemption; they were most holy, i.

26, 29. Classes which may not be vowed Firstlings are already the Lord’s (Exodus 13:2). If the firstling is, that of an animal which is reckoned among the ‘unclean’ (according to the rule laid down, ch. Leviticus 11:3), it is to be valued and redeemed at 1 1/5 of its valuation. Driver, Exodus 13:13 (J), points out that P’s law, as given here, is more favourable to the priests. In Exod. the redemption is to be made by a lamb, a less valuable animal.

29. Shall surely be put to death — Doubtless meaning that the person so devoted should remain till death in the condition in which his devotement placed him.