Footnote 3: (It should be noted that Leviticus 27 describes two kinds of vows: the neder and the cherem. The neder was the kind of vow to which the laws of redemption applied. The cherem, or the devoted thing, could not be redeemed. It became "most holy" unto Yahweh. As the text reads in vs. 27-28:

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.

None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Some have mistakenly construed this text to imply human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was not a part of the Mosaic system and for good reason: it would have been efficacious for nothing. As it was, the blood sacrifice of animals existed not to expiate sins, but as a means of moral influence - as spiritual pedagogy - until such time as the Lamb of God should come into the world. There were "devoted" persons who were offered up for slaughter in war or in punishment for crime. The Canaanites are an example of this kind of cherem. But for their wickedness, the Canaanites were the victims of justice, not of human sacrifice. However, even among the Canaanites, there were interesting exceptions.

For example, there was Rahab, the harlot of Jericho. All the inhabitants of Jericho were cherem. Yet, Rahab escaped. She ransomed herself by saving the Israelite spys. The Midianites are another example. By using duplicity, they obtained a treaty from Joshua and the Israelites which spared them from attack. So there were exceptions to this rule, but they were rare and involved acquiesance by the representatives of Yahweh before they were effective.

Presumably, the priest had the option to "de-sanctify" something that was pledged as a devoted thing to God. An example of this can be found when the high priest permitted David and his soldiers to eat the shewbread of the Tabernacle (1 Samuel 21). Only priests were allowed to eat of this holy food. It was a sacrilege requiring the death penalty for anyone else to eat it. Yet in this case, the priest had the power to suspend the rule and de-sanctify the bread so that it could be eaten without fear of Divine displeasure.

This was not without consequence, however. In the case of David and the shewbread, the priests were slaughtered by Saul shortly afterwards. Could it not be that the high priest bore the guilt of de-sanctifying the shewbread? Even though Saul killed them for unholy reasons, might not the high priest have lost Divine protection because of this decision?

A "devoted" person in Israel was usually someone who was given in service to God. It was a lifetime commitment. The prophet Samuel is an example of cherem. In every other respect he lived a normal life (e.g. he had children). But he was bound by his mother's oath to serve a Divine calling, rather than the interests of his father's house.

Thus, we see how Jesus is the most perfect of redeemers. As our kinsman according to the flesh, he can redeem us from Satan's power; yet also, as the High Priest of Heaven, He has the power to release us from those sins which seem to have no redemption.

This pertains to our eternal salvation, yet it does not nullify the need for penance or restitution in the case of presumptuous sins (see Presumption & the Sin of Uncleanness).

Return to Text