Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Gary:

I have been thinking of this question on and off for a few days…

On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org> wrote:

> In a word, yes.
>
> חרם is the key term here in 27:29, Karl, as it relates to your inquiry.
>

Yes, it is. The question here, what exactly does it mean and what does it
refer to?

As a verb, I understand its meaning to be “to identify a person or object
such that he is designated for special attention, e.g. consecrated to the
Lord such that one can no longer make use of it for himself, sentenced to
destruction or condemned to death ⇒ (physically) to (indicate by a) mark, as
in to blemish, make imperfect”

There are two recognized derivatives, “marked ⇒ designated object or person
to be consecrated or condemned to destruction” and “marked such that
blemished, disfigured, has imperfection”.

What makes it so difficult to pin down is that sometimes it refers to what
seems very positive, other times to that which is very negative. I don’t
claim to be able to recognize all times when it is to be understood as a
positive and when a negative.

In the verses preceding, חרם is a positive. So how do we recognize in this
verse that it is a negative?

>
> The textual referent is someone who is dedicated to the LORD in the sense
> of being given over to destruction as a result of divine judgment.
>
> Evidently, there were subcultures in the ANE that were so debauched and
> evil, they posed a threat to surrounding nations in general and to the
> Israelites in particular. God commanded that they be excised (a sort of
> radical surgery, one might say).
>
> Have you ever seen the TV sci-fi series FRINGE, produced by J.J. Abrams
> (who did the most recent Star Trek movie)?
>

I don’t have a TV in the house.

>
> So yes, Karl, I'd say the "consecrated" individual dies. The Hebrew text
> certainly sounds that way: כל־חרם אשר יחרם מן־האדם לא יפדה מות יומת׃
>
> Notice the interesting parallelism, presumably for the purpose of emphasis,
> in the text: "devoted that he was devoted" (חרם אשר יחרם) juxtaposed with
> "to die he must die" (מות יומת׃).
>
> One example of this radical, surgical removal of evil would be the
> Canaanites, as Wenham points out in his commentary on Leviticus (NICOT):
>
> The ban (28–29)
> Banning or devoting was a more solemn and irreversible vow than ordinary
> dedication. Anyone or anything that was devoted to the Lord could not be
> ransomed. It was usual to invoke the ban in wars against the native
> inhabitants of Canaan. In divine judgment all Israel’s enemies and their
> property were devoted to the Lord (e.g., Num. 21:2; Deut. 7:2; 1 Sam. 15).
> It could also be used as a judicial sentence against idolaters (Exod. 22:19
> [Eng. 20]; Deut. 13:16 [15]). It seems unlikely that ordinary Israelites
> could pronounce such vows; only the recognized leaders had authority to
> declare a death sentence.12
>

Certain things that were חרם not only could be ransomed, rather they were
required to be ransomed. Read the previous verses.

>
> Gary Hedrick
> San Antonio, Texas USA
>
> One clue could be the phrase יחרם מן־האדם though I am not sure exactly how
that would be a clue.

Karl W. Randolph.