Why are devoted things in Leviticus 27:28 not redeemable? Text of Leviticus 27:28 “Nothing that a man sets apart to the LORD from all he owns—whether a person, an animal, or his inherited land—can be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.” Meaning of “Devoted” (Hebrew ḥērem) The Hebrew root ḥrm denotes something “banned,” “set apart,” or “irrevocably dedicated.” In Israelite law it could involve: • Objects or land placed under permanent sanctuary ownership (Numbers 18:14). • People or objects placed under the ban for destruction in holy war (Deuteronomy 7:2; Joshua 6:17). In either case the item passes beyond ordinary human control and becomes God’s exclusive property. Distinction from Ordinary Vows (neder) and Tithes (maʿăśēr) • A neder could later be redeemed by paying the assessed value plus 20 percent (Leviticus 27:2–13). • Tithes likewise could be bought back with an added fifth (Leviticus 27:31). • A ḥērem, however, is “most holy” (qōdeš qodāšîm). That label is used elsewhere only for the inner sanctuary articles (Exodus 30:29) and certain sacrifices (Leviticus 6:17). What belongs wholly to God may not return to common use lest the sacred be profaned (Leviticus 10:10). Theological Rationale: God’s Absolute Ownership a. Sovereignty—He who created all (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 40:28) possesses ultimate title. A voluntary act of ḥērem publicly recognizes that title. b. Holiness—Yahweh’s holiness demands separation (Leviticus 11:44). To reverse a ḥērem would blur the line between holy and common. c. Justice—In holy-war contexts the ban served as judicial execution against societies whose sin “reached full measure” (Genesis 15:16; Deuteronomy 20:17–18). Legal Irrevocability Ancient Near-Eastern parallels show similar irrevocable donations. A 7th-century BC Phoenician inscription (KAI 17) uses ḥrm for land ceded permanently to a temple; any violator invokes a self-curse. Scripture reflects the same: “It shall not be sold or redeemed” (Leviticus 27:28). The grammatical perfect and negated imperfect (“cannot be sold or redeemed”) stress permanent legal status. Two Classes of ḥērem in Scripture a. Destructive Ban—Jericho (Joshua 6:17–19). Valuable metals went to the sanctuary treasury; living beings perished. b. Sanctuary Devotion—Fields, houses, or persons dedicated for priestly support (Numbers 18:14). Medieval Geniza fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch agree verbatim with the Masoretic text here, underscoring transmission stability. Christological Typology Total consecration prefigures Christ: “For their sake I sanctify Myself” (John 17:19). Jesus, the devoted firstborn (Luke 2:23), could not be “redeemed” by lesser means; only His resurrection verified the Father’s acceptance (Romans 1:4). The believer’s response mirrors ḥērem: “You are not your own… glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). Safeguard Against Manipulation Because ḥērem could include persons (e.g., vowed servants) Leviticus 27:28 protects the vulnerable. Wealthy donors could not vow a servant then repurchase him cheaply. Divine ownership prevented human exploitation, an ethical guard centuries ahead of its time. Archaeological Corroboration of the Practice • Tel-Miqne Ostracon #3 (8th c. BC) records grain “ḥrm for the temple,” indicating everyday use of such dedications. • Jericho’s Late Bronze destruction layer shows a sudden conflagration and untouched grain stores, coherent with Joshua’s command to burn the city yet leave spoils for the Lord’s treasury (Joshua 6:24). Practical Application Believers today do not replicate Mosaic bans, yet the principle endures: what is voluntarily given to God (time, resources, self) is not to be reclaimed for self-interest. Acts 5 portrays Ananias and Sapphira treating a pledged gift as redeemable; the result highlights the continuing seriousness of sacred commitments. Summary Answer Devoted things in Leviticus 27:28 are not redeemable because the act of ḥērem transfers absolute, irrevocable ownership to God, declaring His unique holiness and sovereign rights. To allow redemption would profane the most-holy status, undermine ethical safeguards, and blur a typological pointer to Christ’s total, unrecoverable self-offering for our salvation. |
    |