Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 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.
28. no devoted thing ] The word lit. means set apart, separated (Arab. harama, whence harem, the occupants of the women’s portion of a Mohammedan house, or the apartments themselves). See on Exo 22:20 for examples of its application, and for the superiority of R.V. over A.V. in the English rendering. For the different species of separation in this sense see HDB., Art. Ban (Kennedy), where a distinction is drawn between objects set apart for God by individuals (the ‘private ban’) referred to in this v., and those persons, such as the idolater or blasphemer, who were subjected to a judicial sentence by the authorities. The latter are those meant in Lev 27:29
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Devoted thing – The primary meaning of the Heb. word cherem is something cut off, or shut up. Its specific meaning in the Law is, that which is cut off from common use and given up in some sense to Yahweh, without the right of recal or commutation. It is applied to a field wholly appropriated to the sanctuary Lev 27:21, and to whatever was doomed to destruction 1Sa 15:21; 1Ki 20:42. Our translators have often rendered the word by cursed, or a curse, which in some places may convey the right sense, but it should be remembered that the terms are not identical in their compass of meaning (Deu 7:26; Jos 6:17-18; Jos 7:1; Isa 34:5; Isa 43:28, etc. Compare Gal 3:13).
Of man and beast – This passage does not permit human sacrifices. Man is elsewhere clearly recognized as one of the creatures which were not to be offered in sacrifice Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20; Num 18:15.
Therefore the application of the word cherem to man is made exclusively in reference to one rightly doomed to death and, in that sense alone, given up to Yahweh. The man who, in a right spirit, either carries out a sentence of just doom on an offender, or who, with a single eye to duty, slays an enemy in battle, must regard himself as Gods servant rendering up a life to the claim of the divine justice (compare Rom 13:4). It was in this way that Israel was required to destroy the Canaanites at Hormah (Num 21:2-3; compare Deu 13:12-18), and that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord 1Sa 15:33. In all such instances, a moral obligation rests upon him whose office it is to take the life: he has to look upon the object of his stroke as under a ban to the Lord (compare Deu 20:4; Gal 3:13). Therefore, there can be neither redemption nor commutation.
It is evident that the righteousness of this law is not involved in the sin of rash or foolish vows, such as Sauls 1Sa 14:24 or Jephthahs Jdg 11:30.
And it seems hardly needful to add that sacrifice, as it is represented both in the Law and in the usage of the patriarchs, is something very different from consecration under a ban, though a tiring to be sacrificed might come under the designation of cherem in its wider sense. The sacrifice was always the offering up of the innocent life of a creature chosen, approved, and without spot or blemish.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 28. No devoted thing – shall be sold or redeemed] This is the cherem, which always meant an absolute unredeemable grant to God.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
No devoted thing, i.e. nothing which is absolutely devoted to God, with a curse upon themselves or others if they disposed not of it according to their vow; as the Hebrew word implies.
Of all that he hath, to wit, in his power or possession.
Is most holy unto the Lord, i.e. only to be touched or employed by the priests, and by no other persons; no, not by their own families, for that was the state of the
most holy things.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
28, 29. no devoted thing, that a manshall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, . . . shall be soldor redeemedThis relates to vows of the most solemn kindthedevotee accompanying his vow with a solemn imprecation on himself notto fail in accomplishing his declared purpose.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Notwithstanding, no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord,…. This is a different vow from the former, expressed by “sanctifying”; for though “sanctifying” and “devoting” were both vows, yet the latter had an execration or curse added to it, by which a man imprecated a curse upon himself, if that itself, which he devoted, was put to any other use than that for which he devoted it; wherefore this sort of vow was absolute and irrevocable, and what was vowed was unalienable, and therefore not to be sold or redeemed as afterwards expressed, whereas things sanctified might:
of all that he hath, [both] of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; but must be put to the use for which it was devoted. This must be understood of such as were his own, and he had a right to dispose of; which were in his own power, as Aben Ezra interprets the phrase, “of all that he hath”: if of men, they must be such as were his slaves, which he had a despotic power over; such as he could sell, or give to another, or leave to his children for a perpetual inheritance, Le 25:46; and could dispose of as he pleased, and so devote to the service of the priests: thus Jarchi interprets it of menservants and maidservants, Canaanitish ones; and if of beasts, such as were his own property, and not another’s; and if of fields, such as were his possession by inheritance. Some Jewish writers, as Abendana, from the phrase, “of all that he hath”, gather, that a man might devote only a part of what he had, and not the whole; and so it is said in the Misnah,
“a man may devote of his flock and of his herd, of his servants and maidens Canaanites, and of the field of his possession; but if he devote all of them, they are not devoted k,”
the vow is null and void; and so one of the commentators l upon it says, he may devote some movable things, but not all; some of his Canaanitish servants and maidens, but not all; some part of the field of his possession, but not the whole: but a man’s children, and Hebrew servants, and purchased fields, according to the Jewish canon, might not be devoted;
“if anyone devotes his son or his daughter, his servant or his handmaid, that are Hebrews, or the field of his purchase, they are not devoted (or to be reckoned so), for no man devotes (or ought to devote) what is not his own m.”
A commentator n excepts his daughter, and says, he may devote his daughter, because he may sell her while a minor, but not an adult virgin; see Ex 21:7;
every devoted thing [is] most holy unto the Lord; and therefore not to be appropriated to any use but his, nor to be meddled with, not even touched or handled by any but the priests, as the most holy things that were eatable were only to be eaten by them.
k Eracin, c. 8. sect. 4. l Bartenora in ib. m lb. sect. 5. n Bartenora in Misn. Eracin, c. 8. sect. 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Moreover, nothing put under the ban, nothing that a man had devoted (banned) to the Lord of his property, of man, beast, or the field of his possession, was to be sold or redeemed, because it was most holy (see at Lev 2:3). The man laid under the ban was to be put to death. According to the words of Lev 27:28, the individual Israelite was quite at liberty to ban, not only his cattle and field, but also men who belonged to him, that is to say, slaves and children. signifies to dedicate something to the Lord in an unredeemable manner, as cherum , i.e., ban, or banned. (to devote, or ban), judging from the cognate words in the Arabic, signifying prohibere, vetare, illicitum facere, illicitum, sacrum , has the primary signification “to cut off,” and denotes that which is taken away from use and abuse on the part of men, and surrendered to God in an irrevocable and unredeemable manner, viz., human beings by being put to death, cattle and inanimate objects by being either given up to the sanctuary for ever or destroyed for the glory of the Lord. The latter took place, no doubt, only with the property of idolaters; at all events, it is commanded simply for the infliction of punishment on idolatrous towns (Deu 13:13.). It follows from this, however, that the vow of banning could only be made in connection with persons who obstinately resisted that sanctification of life which was binding upon them; and that an individual was not at liberty to devote a human being to the ban simply at his own will and pleasure, otherwise the ban might have been abused to purposes of ungodliness, and have amounted to a breach of the law, which prohibited the killing of any man, even though he were a slave (Exo 21:20). In a manner analogous to this, too, the owner of cattle and fields was only allowed to put them under the ban when they had been either desecrated by idolatry or abused to unholy purposes. For there can be no doubt that the idea which lay at the foundation of the ban was that of a compulsory dedication of something which resisted or impeded sanctification; so that in all cases in which it was carried into execution by the community or the magistracy, it was an act of the judicial holiness of God manifesting itself in righteousness and judgment.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(28) Notwithstanding no devoted thing.Better, Nevertheless, no banned thing (see Lev. 27:26), that is, unlike those things consecrated to God by the vow hitherto spoken of, anything which the vower devoted to God under a solemn ban cannot be redeemed.
Both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession.This shows the extent to which a man may go in exercising his power to devote things to God in this manner. He was perfectly at liberty to ban not only his cattle and his otherwise inalienable inherited land, but also those human beings over whom he had controlhis children and slaves.
Every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.Being most holy, any thing or person thus devoted to the Lord could neither be sold by the officials of the sanctuary nor be redeemed by the vower who had in this manner banned the objects of his vow. All gifts devoted under the ban became the property of the priests. (See Lev. 27:17; Num. 18:14; Eze. 44:29.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THINGS UNDER THE BAN AND TITHES, Lev 27:28-34.
28. No devoted thing Nothing put under the ban to the Lord, either of property or persons, was to be redeemed or sold, because it was most holy.
Lev 2:3, note. The Hebrew word for “devoted” is cherem, a much stronger term than it is translated by in our version. It differs from the neder, or ordinary vow, in the imprecations and execrations invoked for its non-fulfilment. There may have been other differences which are not in the Mosaic record. That this form of a vow was solemn in the highest degree, and absolutely irrevocable, and, in this respect, an exception to the vows in the preceding verses, is evident from the Hebrew particle at the beginning of the verse, ak, nevertheless.
Of man and beast “The man thus devoted was to be put to death,” says Keil. But Saalschutz discusses the question whether private persons could devote human beings to death, and rightly decides in the negative. In later times menservants and maidservants belonged to the sanctuary. Num 31:47; Jos 9:3; Jos 9:26-27; 1Sa 2:22, note. On the whole, Mosaism does not favour votive dedications, hence we find no very exact specifications respecting them. The cherem, or ban, denotes that which is removed from the use or abuse of men and irrecoverably devoted to God, human beings being killed, while sacrificial animals and the precious metals were either given up to the sanctuary forever or destroyed for the glory of Jehovah. See Jos 6:17; Jos 6:21, notes. This was the punishment denounced against incorrigible idolatry. Deu 13:13-18. “It follows from this, however, that the vow of banning could only be made in connexion with persons who obstinately resisted that sanctification of life which was binding upon them; and that an individual was not at liberty to devote a human being to the ban simply at his own will and pleasure, otherwise the ban might have been abused to purposes of ungodliness, and have amounted to a breach of the law, which prohibited the killing of a man, even though he were a slave.
Exo 21:20. The owner of cattle and fields was allowed to put them under the ban only when they had been either desecrated by idolatry or abused to unholy purposes. For there can be no doubt that the idea which lay at the foundation of the ban was that of a compulsory dedication of something which resisted or impeded sanctification, so that in all cases in which it was carried into execution by the community or the magistracy it was an act of the judicial holiness of God.” Keil and Delitzsch.
Most holy The devoted thing could be eaten by the priests only, or, if inedible, it could be employed only for the service of Jehovah. It was sacrilege for the giver to put forth his hand to retake it. He might have made the cherem very grudgingly and half-heartedly, but, having made it, the object was forever removed from his control. It was not the intention of the giver that made it holy, but the holiness of the Receiver. An offering once laid upon the altar from that moment belonged to the Lord. This law throws floods of light upon the subject of Christian consecration and sanctification. Having solemnly surrendered our entire being to Christ, we are henceforth to reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God as most holy sacrifices, which it would be sacrilege to take from the altar.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Devoted Things ( Lev 27:28-29 ).
Up to this point if something was not redeemed it could be either used by or sold by the priests. But ‘devoted’ things would seem to indicate things irrevocably devoted to Yahweh. This was seemingly the most serious of vows and the devoted thing became most holy to Yahweh and could neither be sold nor redeemed. Either it was kept permanently within the tabernacle or it was burned. Normally such things would be such as for some special reason were to be seen as sacred, possibly with the hope of making the vow more effective.
Lev 27:28
“Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote to Yahweh of all that he has, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy to Yahweh.”
If a man ‘devotes’ something to Yahweh in this way, then whatever it is, whether man, beast, or field of permanent possession, it is most holy to Yahweh and unredeemable.
Lev 27:29
“No one devoted, that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.”
In the case of a man such a person devoted to Yahweh must be put to death. They are ‘most holy’ to Yahweh. This would apply to those who were seen as deserving of the death penalty such as murderers, adulterers, idolaters, blasphemers and so on. They were devoted to Yahweh. They could not then be redeemed. They must be put to death. Compare Achan in Joshua 7.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 27:28-29. Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, &c. The word which we render a vow, in the second verse, is neder, by which, (whoever devoted any thing to God,) there remained a power of redemption. Another kind of vow called cherem, is here mentioned; whereby, (whoever devoted any thing to God;) there remained no power of redemption. Things thus devoted were most holy; i.e. so solemnly adjudged or separated to religious uses, that they could not be at all alienated. Some have supposed that cherem signifies a vow, with a curse or imprecation upon themselves if the thing was not employed according to that vow. Every thing thus devoted, was never to be separated from the Lord’s service: whether of man or beast, it was to continue in that service till death; which is the whole meaning of the phrase in the 29th verse, rendered, certainly, too ambiguously both in ours and many other versions; but which it is amazing to find that men of learning, but of deistical principles, have perverted in such a manner, as if it countenanced and inculcated the offering of human sacrifices among the Jews. The plain meaning of the verse is only this, that nothing devoted of men shall be redeemed; but shall surely die; in the original, dying he shall die, (as in Gen 2:17.) i.e. shall continue till death in this devoted state. Thus Samuel, for instance, was vowed from infancy unto the Lord, to serve him all the days of his life; and, accordingly, his mother brought him to abide with him for ever: i.e. till he should die, as in this verse. Houbigant, however, renders this verse, whoever of men shall be devoted, shall not be redeemed, but shall be put to death: and he understands it as referring entirely to the divine anathema upon the Canaanites. Dr. Doddridge is nearly of the same opinion; “for,” says he, “this passage refers to a vow to destroy the inhabitants of any place which they made war against, and was intended to make them cautious in laying themselves under such obligations. Compare Num 1:3. Deu 17:19. Jos 6:17-18; Jos 24:26; see also Jdg 21:5. 1Sa 24:22.” Some of our modern infidels have enlarged with great satisfaction upon this capital defect, as they think it, of the Jewish law: but either interpretation of the words above given, renders their triumph weak and insignificant. Many excellent writers of ours, however, have been at the pains copiously to vindicate this passage: and those who are inclined to see more upon the subject, may consult Doddridge’s Theological Lectures, page 358, and the authors there quoted by him.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Lev 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.
Ver. 28. Notwithstanding no devoted. ] Hitherto of things consecrate; now of things execrate, whereof see a command, Deu 13:15 ; Deu 13:17 an example. Num 21:2 These could not be sold, nor redeemed, but must remain with the priest: if it were a beast, then to be put to death.
No devoted thing.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Notwithstanding. See note on Lev 27:26.
is = it [is].
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
redeemed
Heb. “goel,” Redemp. (Kinsman type). (See Scofield “Isa 59:20”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
no devoted: This is the cherem, the absolute, irredeemable grant to God. Lev 27:21, Exo 22:20, Num 21:2, Num 21:3, Deu 7:1, Deu 7:2, Deu 13:15, Deu 13:16, Deu 20:16, Deu 20:17, Deu 25:19, Jos 6:17-19, Jos 6:26, Jos 7:1, Jos 7:11-13, Jos 7:25, Jdg 11:30, Jdg 11:31, Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:11, Jdg 21:18, 1Sa 14:24-28, 1Sa 14:38-45, 1Sa 15:3, 1Sa 15:18, 1Sa 15:32, 1Sa 15:33, Mat 25:41, Act 23:12-14, Rom 9:3, 1Co 16:22, Gal 3:10, Gal 3:13
Reciprocal: Num 16:26 – I pray you Num 16:37 – hallowed Num 18:14 – General Deu 2:34 – utterly destroyed Deu 3:6 – we utterly Deu 7:26 – shalt Deu 13:17 – cursed Jos 9:23 – General Jdg 11:35 – have opened Jdg 11:39 – did with 2Ch 31:14 – the most Ezr 10:8 – forfeited Eze 44:29 – dedicated Eze 48:14 – they shall
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 27:28. No devoted thing That is, nothing which is absolutely devoted to God with a curse upon themselves or others if they disposed not of it according to their vow; as the Hebrew word implies. Most holy That is, only to be touched or employed by the priests, and by no other persons; no, not by their own families, for that was the state of the most holy things.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
28f. The Ban.Devoted things are things dedicated to God without possibility of redemption, i.e. put under the ban and not to be touched by men (pp. 99, 114, Deu 2:34*, Jdg 1:17*). Hence, according to the old rule, a human being so devoted must be put to death (cf. Jos 6:17*, 1Sa 15:21). There are no later instances. Such an act, mentioned as it is here, if not simply looking back to historical instances, must refer only to capital crimes, all of which now come under the cognisance of the priests. Eze 44:29 assigns all objects so devoted (? including human beings) to the priests.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE LAW OF THE BAN
Lev 27:28-29
“Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or 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 ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.”
Neither could any “devoted thing” be given to the Lord by a vow, and for the same reason-that it belonged to Him already. But it is added that, unlike that which has been vowed, the Lords firstlings and the tithes, that which has been devoted may neither be sold nor redeemed. If it be a person which is thus “devoted,” “he shall surely be put to death” (Lev 27:29). The reason of this law is found in the nature of the herem or ban. It devoted to the Lord only such persons and things as were in a condition of irreformable hostility and irreconcilable antagonism to the kingdom of God. By the ban such were turned over to God, in order to the total nullification of their power for evil; by destroying whatever was capable of destruction, as the persons and all living things that belonged to them; and by devoting to the Lords service in the sanctuary and priesthood such of their property as, like silver, gold, and land, was in its nature incapable of destruction. In such devoted persons or things no man therefore was allowed to assert any personal claim or interest, such as the right of sale or of redemption would imply. Elsewhere the Israelite is forbidden even to desire the silver or gold that was on the idols in devoted cities, {Deu 7:25} or to bring it into his house or tent, on penalty of being himself banned or devoted like them; a threat which was carried out in the case of Achan, {Jos 7:1-26} who, for appropriating a wedge of gold and a garment which had been devoted, according to the law here and elsewhere declared, was summarily put to death.
This is not the place to enter fully into a discussion of the very grave questions which arise in connection with this law of the ban, in which it is ordered that “none devoted,” “whether of man or beast,” “shall be ransomed,” but “shall be surely put to death.” The most familiar instance of its application is furnished by the case of the Canaanitish cities, which Joshua, in accordance with this law of Lev 27:28-29, utterly destroyed, with their inhabitants and every living thing that was in them. There are many sincere believers in Christ who find it almost impossible to believe that it can be true that God commanded such a slaughter as this; and the difficulty well deserves a brief consideration. It may not indeed be possible wholly to remove it from every mind; but one may well call attention, in connection with these verses, to certain considerations which should at least suffice very greatly to relieve its stress.
In the first place, it is imperative to remember that, if we accent the teaching of Scripture, we have before us in this history, not the government of man, but the government of God, a true theocracy. Now it is obvious that if even fallible men may be rightly granted power to condemn men to death, for the sake of the public good, much more must this right be conceded, and that without any limitation, to the infinitely righteous and infallible King of kings, if, in accord with the Scripture declarations, He was, literally and really, the political Head (if we may be allowed the expression) of the Israelitish nation. Further, if this absolute right of God in matters of life and death be admitted, as it must be; it is plain that He may rightly delegate the execution of His decrees to human agents. If this right is granted to one of our fellow men, as to a king or a magistrate, much more to God.
Granting that the theocratic government of Israel was a historical fact, the only question then remaining as to the right of the ban, concerns the justice of its application in particular cases. With regard to this, we may concede that it was quite possible that men might sometimes apply this law without Divine authority; but we are not required to defend such cases, if any be shown, any more than to excuse the infliction of capital punishment in America sometimes by lynch law. These cases furnish no argument against its infliction after due legal process, and by legitimate governmental authority. As to the terrible execution of this law of the ban, in the destruction of the inhabitants of the Canaantish cities, if the fact of the theocratic authority be granted, it is not so difficult to justify this as some have imagined. Nor, conversely, when the actual facts are thoroughly known, can the truth of the statement of the Scripture that God commanded this terrible destruction, be regarded as irreconcilable with those moral perfections which Scripture and reason alike attribute to the Supreme Being.
The researches and discoveries of recent years have let in a flood of light upon the state of society prevailing among those Canaanitish tribes at the date of their destruction; and they warrant us in saying that in the whole history of our race it would be hard to point to any civilised community which has sunken to such a depth of wickedness and moral pollution. As we have already seen, the book of Leviticus gives many dark hints of unnamable horrors among the Canaanitish races: the fearful cruelties of the worship of Molech, and the unmentionable impurities of the cult of Ashtoreth; the prohibition among some of these of female chastity, requiring that all be morally sacrificed- one cannot go into these things. And when now we read in Holy Scripture that the infinitely pure, holy and righteous God commanded that these utterly depraved and abandoned communities should be extirpated from the face of the earth, is it, after all, so hard to believe that this should be true? Nay, may we not rather with abundant reason say that it would have been far more difficult to reconcile with the character of God it He had suffered them any longer to exist?
Nor have we yet fully stated the case. For we must, in addition, recall the fact that these corrupt communities, which by this law of the ban were devoted to utter destruction, were in no out-of-the-way corner of the world, but on one of its chief highways. The Phoenicians, for instance, more than any people of that time, were the navigators and travellers of the age; so that from Canaan as a center this horrible moral pestilence was inevitably carried by them hither and thither, a worse than the “black death,” to the very extremities of the known world. Have we then so certainly good reason to call in question the righteousness of the law which here ordains that no person thus devoted should be ransomed, but be surely put to death? Rather are we inclined to see in this law of the theocratic kingdom. and its execution in Canaan-so often held up as an illustration of the awful cruelty of the old theocratic regime-not only a conspicuous vindication of the righteousness and justice of God, but a no less illustrious manifestation of his mercy; -of His mercy, not merely to Israel, but to the whole human race of that age, who because of this deadly infection of moral evil had otherwise again everywhere sunk to such unimaginable depths of depravity as to have required a second flood for the cleansing of the world. This certainly was the way in which the Psalmist regarded it, {Psa 136:17-22} he praised Jehovah as One who “smote great kings, and slew famous kings, and gave their land for a heritage, even a heritage unto Israel His servant: for HIS MERCY endureth forever”; a thought which is again more formally expressed {Psa 62:12} in the words: “Unto Thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for Thou tenderest to every man according to his work.”
Nor can we leave this law of the ban without noting the very solemn suggestion which it contains that there may be in the universe persons who, despite the great redemption, are morally irredeemable, hopelessly obdurate; for whom, under the government of a God infinitely righteous and merciful, nothing remains but the execution of the ban-the “eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels”; {Mat 25:41} “a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries”. {Heb 10:27} And this, not merely although, but BECAUSE Gods “mercy endureth forever.”
Could any better system be imagined by which to convert a slavish and superstitious multitude into a nation at once humble and pure and gallant–a nation of brothers and of worshippers, chastened by a genuine sense of ill desert and of responsibility, and yet braced and fired by the conviction of an exalted destiny?
To do this, and also to lead mankind to liberty, to rescue them from sensuous worship, and prepare them for a system yet more spiritual, to teach the human race that life is not repose but warfare, pilgrimage and aspiration, and to sow the seeds of beliefs and expectations which only an atoning Mediator and an Incarnate God could satisfy, this was the meaning of the Exodus.