Towards a Biblical Theology of חרם

by

Helen Paynter

A Dissertation submitted to Bristol Baptist College and the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts

by advanced study in Biblical Studies in the Faculty of Arts

Bristol Baptist College

May 2011

Word Count 14875

(text and footnotes only excluding preliminary

pages bibliography and appendices)

2

Abstract Ḥerem the total annihilation of the conquered enemies of Israel has exercised apologists and lay-

people for centuries The two standard responses ndash that it is Godrsquos righteous judgment on an

idolatrous people or is a literary construct bearing little relationship to actual events ndash have failed to

soothe the anxieties of many In addition the expanding field of biblical theology has largely

disregarded the issue

This dissertation examines three novel theological models of ḥerem to investigate whether they

contribute to the biblical theological understanding of the issue Firstly the work of Susan Niditch is

considered In addition to seeing ḥerem as judgment she argues that it is a form of sacrifice dealing

with the guilt of the perpetrator not of the victim Secondly Philip Stern describes ḥerem as the

creation of order out of chaos following Eliadersquos understanding of land settlement as a cosmogonic

event Thirdly Hyung-Dae Park has classified ḥerem into voluntary instigated by a human act of

piety and mandatory commanded by God According to his classification redemption is possible

from mandatory but not from voluntary ḥerem Finally the work of Reneacute Girard is briefly considered

as it overlaps with the work of both Niditch and Stern

The dissertation then considers whether these models might contribute to our understanding of the

Cross It is concluded that Niditchrsquos theory provides a paradigm for human sacrifice that Sternrsquos

order-out-of chaos is part of both the biblical theological trajectory of creationrecreation and the

Christus Victor model of the atonement and that Parkrsquos classification of ḥerem enriches the

propitiatory atonement model by viewing Jesus as voluntary ḥerem in redemption of Israel which is

mandatory ḥerem Finally considering whether the Cross can assist our reading of ḥerem the

dissertation concludes that Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating despite limitations in its usefulness

encourages us to identify the victims of ḥerem with Jesus

3

For Stephen always and forever

For Mother and Father who kindled the flame

For Susanna Louisa and Victoria to whom I pass it on

Above all this is written to the glory of God alone

With grateful thanks to Rev Dr Ernest Lucas and Dr Stephen Paynter who read

and commented on the first draft of this work Any residual mistakes are mine alone

4

Authorrsquos Declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Universityrsquos Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes and that it

has not been submitted for any other academic award Except where indicated by specific reference

in the text this work is my own work Work done in collaboration with or with the assistance of

others is indicated as such I have identified all material in this dissertation which is not my own

work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgment Where I have quoted from the work of

others I have included the source in the references bibliography Any views expressed in the

dissertation are those of the author

Signedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

5

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 7

Forward 8

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

the apologistrsquos nightmare 9 חרם

as judgment 9 חרם

An apologetic for 10 חרם

A biblical theology for 11 חרם

Polyvalency of the word 12 חרם

in relation to Holy War 14 חרם

Summary of the paper 14

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice 16

Blood that pleases YHWH 16

The war vow 17

Burnt offering 19

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo 20

Conclusion 20

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos 22

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis 22

Mesha Stele 22

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains 23 חרם

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos 24

The conquest of Jericho 24

Saul and Agag 25

Analysis and conclusions 25

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

2

Abstract Ḥerem the total annihilation of the conquered enemies of Israel has exercised apologists and lay-

people for centuries The two standard responses ndash that it is Godrsquos righteous judgment on an

idolatrous people or is a literary construct bearing little relationship to actual events ndash have failed to

soothe the anxieties of many In addition the expanding field of biblical theology has largely

disregarded the issue

This dissertation examines three novel theological models of ḥerem to investigate whether they

contribute to the biblical theological understanding of the issue Firstly the work of Susan Niditch is

considered In addition to seeing ḥerem as judgment she argues that it is a form of sacrifice dealing

with the guilt of the perpetrator not of the victim Secondly Philip Stern describes ḥerem as the

creation of order out of chaos following Eliadersquos understanding of land settlement as a cosmogonic

event Thirdly Hyung-Dae Park has classified ḥerem into voluntary instigated by a human act of

piety and mandatory commanded by God According to his classification redemption is possible

from mandatory but not from voluntary ḥerem Finally the work of Reneacute Girard is briefly considered

as it overlaps with the work of both Niditch and Stern

The dissertation then considers whether these models might contribute to our understanding of the

Cross It is concluded that Niditchrsquos theory provides a paradigm for human sacrifice that Sternrsquos

order-out-of chaos is part of both the biblical theological trajectory of creationrecreation and the

Christus Victor model of the atonement and that Parkrsquos classification of ḥerem enriches the

propitiatory atonement model by viewing Jesus as voluntary ḥerem in redemption of Israel which is

mandatory ḥerem Finally considering whether the Cross can assist our reading of ḥerem the

dissertation concludes that Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating despite limitations in its usefulness

encourages us to identify the victims of ḥerem with Jesus

3

For Stephen always and forever

For Mother and Father who kindled the flame

For Susanna Louisa and Victoria to whom I pass it on

Above all this is written to the glory of God alone

With grateful thanks to Rev Dr Ernest Lucas and Dr Stephen Paynter who read

and commented on the first draft of this work Any residual mistakes are mine alone

4

Authorrsquos Declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Universityrsquos Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes and that it

has not been submitted for any other academic award Except where indicated by specific reference

in the text this work is my own work Work done in collaboration with or with the assistance of

others is indicated as such I have identified all material in this dissertation which is not my own

work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgment Where I have quoted from the work of

others I have included the source in the references bibliography Any views expressed in the

dissertation are those of the author

Signedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

5

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 7

Forward 8

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

the apologistrsquos nightmare 9 חרם

as judgment 9 חרם

An apologetic for 10 חרם

A biblical theology for 11 חרם

Polyvalency of the word 12 חרם

in relation to Holy War 14 חרם

Summary of the paper 14

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice 16

Blood that pleases YHWH 16

The war vow 17

Burnt offering 19

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo 20

Conclusion 20

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos 22

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis 22

Mesha Stele 22

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains 23 חרם

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos 24

The conquest of Jericho 24

Saul and Agag 25

Analysis and conclusions 25

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

3

For Stephen always and forever

For Mother and Father who kindled the flame

For Susanna Louisa and Victoria to whom I pass it on

Above all this is written to the glory of God alone

With grateful thanks to Rev Dr Ernest Lucas and Dr Stephen Paynter who read

and commented on the first draft of this work Any residual mistakes are mine alone

4

Authorrsquos Declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Universityrsquos Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes and that it

has not been submitted for any other academic award Except where indicated by specific reference

in the text this work is my own work Work done in collaboration with or with the assistance of

others is indicated as such I have identified all material in this dissertation which is not my own

work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgment Where I have quoted from the work of

others I have included the source in the references bibliography Any views expressed in the

dissertation are those of the author

Signedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

5

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 7

Forward 8

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

the apologistrsquos nightmare 9 חרם

as judgment 9 חרם

An apologetic for 10 חרם

A biblical theology for 11 חרם

Polyvalency of the word 12 חרם

in relation to Holy War 14 חרם

Summary of the paper 14

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice 16

Blood that pleases YHWH 16

The war vow 17

Burnt offering 19

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo 20

Conclusion 20

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos 22

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis 22

Mesha Stele 22

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains 23 חרם

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos 24

The conquest of Jericho 24

Saul and Agag 25

Analysis and conclusions 25

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

4

Authorrsquos Declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of

the Universityrsquos Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes and that it

has not been submitted for any other academic award Except where indicated by specific reference

in the text this work is my own work Work done in collaboration with or with the assistance of

others is indicated as such I have identified all material in this dissertation which is not my own

work through appropriate referencing and acknowledgment Where I have quoted from the work of

others I have included the source in the references bibliography Any views expressed in the

dissertation are those of the author

Signedhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Datehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip

5

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 7

Forward 8

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

the apologistrsquos nightmare 9 חרם

as judgment 9 חרם

An apologetic for 10 חרם

A biblical theology for 11 חרם

Polyvalency of the word 12 חרם

in relation to Holy War 14 חרם

Summary of the paper 14

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice 16

Blood that pleases YHWH 16

The war vow 17

Burnt offering 19

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo 20

Conclusion 20

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos 22

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis 22

Mesha Stele 22

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains 23 חרם

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos 24

The conquest of Jericho 24

Saul and Agag 25

Analysis and conclusions 25

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

5

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations 7

Forward 8

Chapter 1 Introduction 9

the apologistrsquos nightmare 9 חרם

as judgment 9 חרם

An apologetic for 10 חרם

A biblical theology for 11 חרם

Polyvalency of the word 12 חרם

in relation to Holy War 14 חרם

Summary of the paper 14

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice 16

Blood that pleases YHWH 16

The war vow 17

Burnt offering 19

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo 20

Conclusion 20

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos 22

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis 22

Mesha Stele 22

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains 23 חרם

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos 24

The conquest of Jericho 24

Saul and Agag 25

Analysis and conclusions 25

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

6

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary 27 חרם

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory 28 חרם

The sin of Achan 29

Saul and Agag 30

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis 30

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating 34

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of 37 חרם

Linguistic continuity 37

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT 38

Sacrifice 39

Order out of chaos 40

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory 42 חרם

Test case 1 Luke 117 43

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026 44

Scapegoating 46

Reading backwards 47

Chapter 7 Conclusion 48

Bibliography 50

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT 55

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term 58

Appendix 3 Holy War 60

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 61

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription 62

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

7

List of Abbreviations

OT Old Testament

NT New Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

MI Mesha Inscription

MT Masoretic Text

LXX Septuagint

All biblical translations in this work are my own

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

8

Forward The idea for this piece of research began several years ago when I was consulted by a distressed

member of my congregation about the lsquogenocidersquo episodes in Joshua Could I provide some

answers My faltering attempts at the time and the reading I have done since have convinced me

that we do not yet have a satisfactory answer to these difficult passages I suspect we never will

Nonetheless this piece of work is offered in the hope that it may shed a small amount of light on a

difficult and important subject

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

9

Chapter 1 Introduction

lsquoJoshua overthrew Makkedah on that day and he smote it with the edge of his sword and its king He utterly destroyed it and every soul within it he left no survivorsrsquo (Josh 1028)

the apologistrsquos nightmare חרם

Most of us alive today can remember the appalling genocides of Rwanda Yugoslavia and Kurdish

Iraq We all live with the embodied memory of the Jewish holocaust So how should we read texts

such as Joshua 1028 where Godrsquos people often apparently under divine mandate annihilate a

vanquished enemy

This question has exercised the minds of lay-people and apologists for many years indeed it

appears that even in the time of Josephus and Philo it was cause for embarrassment1

The word translated lsquoutterly destroyrsquo above is חרם (ḥerem) also variously translated lsquodevotersquo lsquobanrsquo

or lsquoseparatersquo The word is used approximately 50 times in the OT most frequently to refer to the

extermination of the Canaanite nations during the Israelite conquest of Canaan During the conquest

and early imperial period חרם appears to have occurred on at least thirteen occasions חרם was

also performed upon individuals animals and property A more detailed analysis of the usage of the

word follows below and in Appendix 1

Standard approaches to חרם fall largely into two camps Some commentators appear to have few

qualms regarding it as Godrsquos justified judgment upon idolatrous nations other apologists seek to

find another approach to lessen the significance of the texts and the events they narrate2

as judgment חרם

The understanding of חרם as appropriate judgment for idolatry was articulated by Jean Calvin in his

commentaries on Deuteronomy and Joshua lsquoGod had not only armed the Jews to carry on war with

them but had appointed them to be the ministers and executioners of His vengeancersquo3

Attempts have been made to answer the trickier ethical issues raised by this approach The

generational gap between offence and judgement in the case of the Amalekites (several hundred

years) Calvin regards as indicative of Godrsquos forbearance4 The ethics of idolatrous Israel as an

instrument of Godrsquos judgment has been explained by the impartial grace of God demonstrated in

1 Park 2007 p 145 2 This dichotomy of approaches is also reflected in the two main strands of Jewish interpretative tradition (Sagi 1994) 3 Calvin amp Bingham 1950 p 53 4 ibid p 53

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

10

election5 Calvin accounts for the killing of infants with reference to universal guilt in the eyes of

God extending even to the newborn6

In this model חרם is preventative a necessary measure to prevent the nation of Israel from being

seduced into idolatry

A similar but more modern exponent of חרם is Hans Boersma who sees it as part of the divine

election trajectory running through the OT and NT It reflects Godrsquos limited but unconditional

hospitality (limited primarily to Israel at this time unconditional towards Israel in spite of her

idolatry) He understands חרם as penal punishing immorality and defending monotheism He also

understands חרם to demonstrate Godrsquos preferential bias for the poor although he concedes that

this leaves the killing of innocents unexplained7

In short such commentators appear content to designate חרם as morally neutral as articulated by

Eugene Merrill who argues that the actions of Israel in Deuteronomy and Joshua are unique

Genocide is not wrong per se but only those forms which differ from this divinely mandated model

lsquoThe issue cannot be whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evil ndash its sanction by a holy

God settles that questionrsquo8

While Susan Niditch concedes that judgment is the main biblical aetiology for חרם she does not find

it entirely satisfactory arguing that it motivates and encourages war distinguishing lsquothemrsquo from lsquousrsquo

lsquocleanrsquo from lsquouncleanrsquo and reifies the enemy by the process of dehumanisation9

Nonetheless it is clear that the Biblersquos own aetiology for חרם is frequently expressed in terms of

divine mandate and judgment or prevention of contamination10

An apologetic for חרם

Perhaps the most extreme apologetic for חרם is demonstrated by the second century teacher

Marcion who rejected the OT from the Christian canon concluding that this represented a different

god from the God of the NT A more modern version of this argument has been offered by Carroll

who in his attempt to defend the Bible from ideological abuse tends to drive a wedge between OT

5 Boersma 2004 p 75ff 6 Calvin 1963 p 163 7 Boersma 2004 pp 75-95 8 Merrill 2003 p 93

9 Niditch 1993 p 77 10 eg Deut 71-6 1312-17

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

11

and NT lsquoIf what the Hebrew Bible has to say is taken seriously Hebrew statement and Christian

theology will make poor bedfellowsrsquo11

Secondly the passages describing חרם may be interpreted as allegorical as suggested by Origen in

the 3rd century lsquoNempe co quod liber hic non tamen gesta nobis sacramenta indicet quam jesu mei

domini nobis sacramenta depingatrsquo12

Most modern scholars would be uncomfortable with Origenrsquos pre-critical approach to biblical

interpretation but the desire to minimise the impact of חרם remains A common approach is to

challenge the historicity of the events arguing that an attempt must be made to distinguish the

textual God from the actual God13 This is facilitated by the use of form-critical and source-critical

analysis which leads some commentators to understand the conquest narrative as a theological

construct by an exilic redactor only loosely based upon actual events14

More recently Walter Brueggemann has offered an apologetic for Joshua 11 as a radical peasant

text expressing the bias of YHWH towards the poor and marginalized15 However I feel that of all the

lsquohardrsquo texts he could have chosen he has selected an lsquoeasyrsquo one as his apologetic centres on the

hamstringing of horses and the burning of chariots which Brueggemann reads as an anti-monarchic

polemic against vastly superior enemy forces This is useful as far as it goes but Brueggemann has

failed to deal with other texts where the sides are more evenly matched and the destruction is less

discriminate

There is not scope in this paper to discuss the philosophical implications of these apologetic

strategies For now we note that none of these theories is widely considered satisfactorily to

account for the ethical problems posed by רםח There may yet be more to contribute to the debate

A biblical theology for חרם

Of course the apologetic arguments are more subtle than I have represented here but nonetheless

they seem mostly to be trying somehow to minimize the issue Is this the best that we can do with

such texts to try to brush them under the carpet and trust that the weaker members of our

congregation donrsquot stumble across them I begin with the conviction that there must be more to say

about them than this

11 Carroll 1991 p 51 12 Origen 1862 p 826 13

This is the central argument in Seibert 2009 See also Collins 2003 14 This is expressed in various ways by Kang 1989 Christensen 2002 von Rad 1958 Butler 2002 Jones 1975 15 Brueggemann 2009

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

12

The aim of this dissertation is to examine חרם from a linguistic historical and theological

perspective I will draw on the works of three recent authors Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park who have each offered some novel insight

There has been little attempt to understand חרם in a biblical theological way16 perhaps because of

lsquoa desire to shove the bloodstained practice into a corner of decent obscurity as a ldquoskeleton at the

feastrdquo of biblical theologyrsquo17

In particular some of the newer insights into חרם contain themes which would appear to have

trajectories linking them to the Cross but this has not yet been researched extensively The latter

part of this work will explore some of these possibilities with particular regard to the Cross

First I will establish the boundaries and frame of reference for the research

Polyvalency of the word חרם

The OT use of the word חרם is quite varied So in Deuteronomy 72 we read that what is חרם must

be destroyed but in Leviticus 2721that it is to be given to the priests In Leviticus 2728-29 it is

described as lsquomost holyrsquo in Deuteronomy 726 it is lsquoabhorrentrsquo Clearly the matter is complex and

this is before we grapple with the deeper theological and ethical issues

A diachronic hypothesis of the development of the word חרם is offered by Levine who compares

its semantic development with the word 18 קדש

The חרם lexeme is first found as the Akkadian harimtu (prostitute) probably from an earlier word

denoting separation or cloistering This then became a designation for proscribed objects or persons

as in the Arabic haram (sacred enclosures) hence our word harem

16 The issue is not addressed in Graham Goldsworthy According to Plan Walter Kaiser The Promise-Plan of God RE Clements Old Testament Theology Gerhardus Vos Biblical Theology Ben Witherington Paulrsquos Narrative Thought World Brevard Childs Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments or The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP) 17 Stern 1991 p 3 18 Levine 1974 p 129

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

13

In comparison קדש appears to originate with the Akkadian designation for sacred prostitute and

likewise for the Ugaritic priesthood Biblical Hebrew adopts it as דש a designation for sacred ק

persons and objects

This overlap between the sacred and the polluted concurs with the work of anthropologist Mircea

Eliade who has argued that the concepts of holiness and defilement are not as distinct as we might

expect19 Robinson Smith demonstrates that holy or defiled objects place limitations upon people

and that supernatural consequences may ensue if such prohibitions are disregarded20

Lohfinkrsquos article in TDOT summarised below provides a useful starting point for our study of the

semantic range of 21חרם

The nominal form of חרם is a concrete noun in the non-prophetic writings22 It can refer to human

beings livestock and other property and retains cultic and sacral overtones However in the war

scenario it is generally the verb form that is used of humans

The hiphil stem has a range of meanings from consecration without destruction (eg Josh 618)23 to

destroying or annihilating without previous consecration (eg 2 Kgs 1911) In between are uses

which employ meaning from both ends of the semantic range

The hophal form is universally associated with the semantic field of punishment (eg Ex 2219 MT)

De Prenter has extended this idea from TDOTrsquos lsquospectrum of meaningsrsquo to a lsquopolysemousrsquo

understanding of חרם where the two poles of meaning are united by a common root idea that of

taboo This is discussed further in Appendix 2

As we have seen חרם may be translated in a number of ways partly due to its polysemy and partly

due to its anachronism to modern readers In the texts within this dissertation I have chosen to leave

untranslated in order to avoid bringing any preconceptions of meaning to our examination of חרם

the text

19 lsquolsquoThis ambivalence of the sacred is not only in the psychological order (in that it attracts or repels) but also in the order of values the sacred is at once lsquosacredrsquo and lsquodefiledrsquordquo (Eliade 1958 pp 14-15) 20 Smith 1927 p 446 21

Lohfink 1986 22 with the possible exception of Lev 2721 where it might be described as an action noun 23 However Lohfinkrsquos other example Lev 2728 carries strong implications of destruction

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

14

in relation to Holy War חרם

The action of חרם in the OT occurs within the context of Holy War or YHWH war There has been

some confusion around these terms and each new publication on the subject appears to adopt a

slightly different terminology Broadly YHWH war is the way that Israel conducted her wars and

Holy War is said to be the theological construction that later redactors imposed upon the same

narratives חרם is considered to be the culmination of Holy War24 Further discussion on Holy War

may be found in Appendix 3

In any case I would argue that the historicity of the events is largely irrelevant to the construction of

an apologetic for חרם If the events happened as narrated they are an embarrassment but even if

they are theological contructs what they are telling us about YHWH is an embarrassment There

does not appear to be an easy way out of the ethical problem by recourse to source criticism

Summary of the paper The OT must be heard on its own terms and this is the aim of chapters 2 to 4 which will examine

and critique three novel readings of חרם in the OT those of Susan Niditch Philip Stern and Hyung-

Dae Park Chapter 5 provides a brief excursus into the question of scapegoating and the contribution

of Reneacute Girard

Once the OTrsquos voice has been heard it may be permitted to enter into dialogue with the NT This is

the theme of Chapter 6 where we will consider whether the suggested approaches to חרם can

contribute to our understanding of the Cross

Ultimately the NT must be permitted to enter into dialogue with the OT lsquoThere is a legitimate place

for a move from a fully developed Christian theological reflection back to the biblical texts of both

testamentsrsquo25 This will be briefly addressed at the end of chapter 6 where we will ask whether the

Cross can shed any light upon the apologetics of חרם

Finally a note about the scope of the research One problem in such a study is how wide to cast the

net Should this paper restrict itself to actual uses of חרם within the text or is it permissible to gain

information from texts which describe annihilation without using the term חרם In general I have

24 de Vaux 1961 p 260 25 Childs 1992 p 70

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

15

confined myself to the passages that name חרם on the assumption that the writer is wishing to

make a point that perhaps he was not intending elsewhere Occasionally however I have digressed

into texts that appear to contain the concept but not the word Such instances are clearly indicated

where they occur

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

16

Chapter 2 Susan Niditch and חרם as sacrifice

The notion that the massacre of men women and children might be considered an acceptable

sacrifice to YHWH is so offensive to modern minds that we perhaps do not consider it as a possible

understanding of חרם However Susan Niditch has bravely tackled the subject and while she

concedes that it is not the dominant theme in the OT חרם passages26 nevertheless she argues that

it is a part of the trajectory that we should not overlook

Human sacrifice occurs in a number of places in the OT We will examine the case of Jephthahrsquos

daughter below the king of Moab gains battle victory through the sacrifice of his son on the walls of

his city (2 Kgs 327) it is possible that the rebuilding of Jericho was accompanied by foundation

sacrifices (1 Kgs 1634)27 and some commentators have understood the impalement of Saulrsquos sons

by the Gibeonites as sacrifice (2 Sam 211-14)28 Moreover the near-sacrifice of Isaac is ambiguous Is

this as some have suggested an aetiology for the replacement of human sacrifice by animals29

However Niditch sees the Genesis narrator as lsquoshockingly neutralrsquo and comments on the very lack of

aetiological commentary offered by the text30

Niditch offers several pieces of evidence in support of her thesis that חרם is a form of sacrifice

firstly that the idea of God welcoming human sacrifice is plausible in the ANE World secondly the

association of חרם with the war vow and the whole burnt offering and finally the specific case of

Saul and Agag

Blood that pleases YHWH In Numbers 18 the writer states (v15) that although the firstborn belong to the Lord they are to be

redeemed However we are not to understand this as authorial squeamishness because just a few

verses later we read

lsquoYou shall not redeem the firstborn of your cattle or the firstborn of your sheep or the firstborn of your goats they are holy You shall sprinkle their blood on the altar and their fat you shall ignite as a burnt offering for a soothing odour to the LORDrsquo (v17)

26 Niditch 1993 p 42 27 Montgomery 1951 pp 287-8 28

de Vaux 1961 p 442 29 ibid p 443 30 Niditch 1993 p 46

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

17

Niditch considers this evidence that this writer regards God as a blood-devourer even though he has

just dismissed the notion of human sacrifice 31 She offers several instances and models from the law

history books and prophets which she considers support her thesis

She refers briefly to Micah 413 which uses חרם in devotional-sacrificial terms albeit of inanimate

objects

lsquoYou shall crush many peoples and ḥerem to the LORD their booty their wealth to the Lord of all the earthrsquo

More pertinently she remarks on the important prophetic idea of YHWHrsquos victory banquet and finds

several passages from the prophets which refer to YHWH feasting on or otherwise relishing the

blood of his enemies32 So in Ezekiel 39 after the victory over Gog and Magog we read

lsquoAssemble come gather from all around to my sacrificial feast which I am slaughtering for you a great sacrificial feast on the mountains of Israel eat flesh and drink bloodrsquo (v17)33

Or from Isaiah 345-6

lsquoWhen my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it is falling on Edom and on the people of my ḥerem for judgement The LORD has a sword it is sated with blood it drips with fatrsquo

Although not all these passages contains explicit reference to חרם Niditch offers them as evidence

that the OT writers were comfortable with the idea of YHWH appreciating human blood She also

points out that this is a familiar theme in the writings of the ANE being found in both Eluma Elish

and the Barsquoal epic and concludes that lsquodeep in the mythological framework of Israelite thought

war death sacrifice the ban and divine satiation are integrally associatedrsquo34

The war vow

Niditch next turns to the MI for a contemporary pagan equivalent to biblical חרם The Mesha Stele

or Moabite Stone is a carved victory stele originating from Moab in the 9th century BC which bears

an incomplete inscription written in Moabite35 narrating a conflict between the nations of Moab

31 ibid p 30 32 ibid p 37ff 33 The passage continues at some length on the theme of eating blood and flesh 34 ibid p 40 35 Moabite has significant linguistic consonance with Hebrew the word חרם is common to both and appears

to have similar meaning (Stern 1991 p 27ff) For a diagram of the relationship between Moabite Hebrew and other ANE languages see Appendix 4

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

18

and Israel Niditch sees a similarity36 between the inscription and Numbers 212-3 In his victory

stele Mesha king of Moab attacks and annihilates the Israelite city of Nebo and then completes his

triumph by performing חרם on the inhabitants of the city However Mesharsquos vow is not explicit

whereas in the biblical text Israelrsquos vow is more obvious

lsquoIsrael swore a vow to the LORD saying ldquoIf you will surely give this people into my hand I will perform ḥerem upon their citiesrdquorsquo (Num 212)

There are other biblical examples of what Niditch terms a lsquowar vow of devotionrsquo37 In 1 Samuel 1424

Saul swears an oath lsquoCursed be the man who eats bread before evening until I am avenged on my

enemiesrsquo Jonathan unwittingly breaks this vow and discovers that his life is forfeit (although this is

not exacted) In Judges 1130-31 Jephthah vows to sacrifice whatever comes first to greet him on his

return in exchange for victory in battle Although this pericope does not contain the word חרם

Niditch points out the similarity between Jephthahrsquos vow and Numbers 212 She thus argues that

the writers of these narratives occupy a world where despite legal prohibitions on human sacrifice

it is generally understood that the gods respond positively to human sacrifice38

We have already briefly considered the incident where Jonathan transgresses his fatherrsquos war vow

Niditch sees a similar situation in 1 Kings 20 where Ahab spares Ben-hadad and is told that his life is

forfeit lsquoNo clearer description of the ban as sacrifice exists The banned king is the Lordrsquos herem if

he is found missing compensation must be provided in the form of the Israelite kingrsquos own lifersquo 39

This perhaps needs a little consideration There is no suggestion in the passage that Ben-hadad is

due to die in Ahabrsquos stead in which case the failure to execute him would have resulted in Ahabrsquos

own life remaining forfeit Neither though may we relegate the prophetrsquos words to Ahab merely to

the level of a punitive statement lsquoYou have sinned so you must diersquo On the contrary the judgment

and parity is clear lsquoYour life for his life and your people for his peoplersquo (v42) There is clearly a

concept of matching of the forfeiture of like-for-like But is this sacrifice40 If so it would almost

seem to imply that it is Ahab who is offered in sacrifice for Agag which is the converse of Niditchrsquos

conclusion

36 However she does not clearly demonstrate but rather asserts the linguistic and conceptual connections between the two texts (Niditch 1993 p 31) 37 ibid p 32 38 ibid p 32 39 ibid p 36 40

Nor are the commentators very helpful DeVries disappointingly draws the conclusion lsquoThe story tells us that there is a time for making treaties and a time for pursuing an enemy to destructionrsquo (DeVries 2003 p 251)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

19

Burnt offering Having argued that the war vow with fatal consequences for forfeit is a familiar device in OT

narrative and that the concept of YHWH appreciating human blood is not alien to Israelite thought

Niditch then mentions briefly the association of כליל (holocaust) with חרם quoting Deuteronomy

1316-17(MT) in support41

lsquoYou shall utterly smite the inhabitants of that city with the sword ḥerem it and all that is in it and all its beasts with the sword Collect all its spoil into the central square and burn the city and all the spoils with fire as a holocaust to the LORD your Godrsquo

is the word used for the whole burnt offering every part of which was to be consumed by fire כליל

(cf Lev 615-16 MT) and it is therefore particularly appropriate to be used as a metaphor for

something which is utterly given over as sacrifice none of which may be retained for personal use

Stern critiques Niditchrsquos approach here arguing that although categories of sacrifice may be limited

(a bird or a goat for instance) the person offering the sacrifice retains the right to determine which

particular animal or bird to offer This element is of course lacking in 42חרם This may be technically

correct but is it relevant The self-determination of the person offering the sacrifice does not

appear to be an important feature of the sacrificial system the freedom of the guilty party to choose

is nowhere emphasised except to reject defective animals where the point is to offer an acceptable

sacrifice

To my mind Niditch does not make quite enough of this חרם ndash כליל association The relationship

between fire and חרם is quite common in the OT in Deuteronomy 72 the Israelites are commanded

to burn the idols of the nations they will subject to חרם in Joshua 624 we read that Joshua fired

Jericho and in 715 that Achan was to be burned for his crime Joshua 1111 provides an interesting

narrative Joshua fired Hazor but none of the other cities on this leg of his conquest We are not give

any clear aetiology for this except perhaps that Hazor is described as the head of the kingdoms Do

we detect the idea of the sacrifice of what is most valuable43

41 Niditch 1993 p 41 42 Stern 1991 p 107 43 The story of Jephthahrsquos daughter leads us to appreciate the value of חרם Niditch cautions against the

impression that when Israel committed חרם upon the population but retained the spoils this represents an

incomplete חרם lsquoIn giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves To the

contrary the best sacrifice the biggest sacrifice is the human lifersquo (Niditch 1993 p 35)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

20

Moreover the association is found in other ANE writings (the חרם equivalent is highlighted)44

Akkadian apils u rab ina d -am-ri s a dAdad

is s arap

His eldest son will be burned to death in the

sacred precinct of Adad

South Arabic In his wars he put many cities to flames he

banned ( ) the city of Nan

It is not to be inferred that every reference to fire refers to sacrifice the burning of the idols of the

nations may be a cleansing rather than a sacrifice motif for instance45 However at least within

Niditchrsquos text of Deuteronomy 1317 the association between חרם and sacrifice appears clear

lsquoBefore the LORD at Gilgalrsquo Niditch suggests that the Saul-Agag pericope may contain an element of sacrifice language

Following his rebuke of Saul we are told that lsquoSamuel hewed Agag before the LORD at Gilgalrsquo46 The

word rendered lsquohewedrsquo in the NRSV is שסף a hapax legomenon and its meaning is unclear

However the LXX has ςυάζψ (slaughter) which is used elsewhere in the LXX of the Passover lamb47

cultic sacrifices48 and the sacrifice of Isaac49

Niditch sees in שסף an allusion to the ritual preparation of sacrificial animals and in the reference

to Gilgal an important shrine in Israel a reference to cultic activity50

Conclusion

Niditch has argued convincingly that in places the OT use of חרם signifies sacrifice She has

demonstrated the plausibility of this idea within the world-view of the ANE51 and the association of

with the war vow and the whole burnt offering She does not claim that sacrifice is the חרם

44 Stern 1991 p 5ff 45 cf the sowing of a captured field with salt (Gevirtz 1963) 46 1 Sam 1533 NRSV 47 Ex 126 48 eg Ex 29 49 Gen 2210 50 Niditch 1993 p 62 see also Fowler 1987 p 384 This interpretation is also supported by the Peshitta and Targum (Koehler 1999 p 1609) 51

Morton Smithrsquos paper lsquoA note on burning babiesrsquo argues strenuously that the practice of human sacrifice and in particular of offering up the firstborn to the flames was clearly attested in the ANE and even in Israel (Smith 1975)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

21

dominant motif in association with חרם but that it is an overlooked one that we would do well to

notice

It is worth considering whether חרם as sacrifice and חרם as judgment are mutually exclusive models

within any one pericope Niditch seems generally to prefer to divide the uses of חרם into the two

categories rather than to seek to unite the two in any one pericope52

Intuitively we may feel that they are mutually contradictory The concept of sacrifice implies that

what is offered is valuable the concept of judgment suggests culpability In the Saul-Agag incident

we perhaps see both these themes Agag as king of Amalek is clearly the most valuable asset that

Saul has retrieved in battle but as king he is arguably the most culpable too We have already seen

Niditchrsquos argument that the hewing of Agag before the Lord at Gilgal suggests sacrifice the

judgment aspect is also explicit in 1 Samuel 1533 lsquoAs your sword has made women childless so

shall your mother be childless among womenrsquo

Finally Niditch articulates several reasons why she considers sacrifice a helpful model to the

understanding of חרם In contrast to חרם as judgment חרם as sacrifice validates the enemy as

valuable deals with the guilt of the killers rather than the victims and is grimly indiscriminate53 One

might also add that חרם as sacrifice means that conquest is more likely to be disinterested

The theme of חרם as sacrifice will be considered again in chapter 6 in relation to the Cross

52 eg Niditch 1993 p 34 53 ibid p 49

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

22

Chapter 3 Philip Stern and חרם as order-out-of-chaos

Philip Sternrsquos detailed philological and historical analysis of חרם provides a novel understanding of

as the restoration of order out of chaos He analyses a large number of ANE sources plausibly חרם

demonstrating a number of parallels to the biblical חרם However his main thesis depends largely

upon his analysis of the Mesha Stele and the biblical uses of the word חרם and we will therefore

focus on this area of his research First however we need briefly to consider a thesis offered by

Mircea Eliade in the 1950s

Eliade and cosmogonic mimesis In his book lsquoThe Sacred and the Profanersquo Eliade proposes a hypothesis that the act of settling in a

territory is an act of cosmogony a repeating of the primordial act of creation54 Traditional societies

he argues assume a sharp distinction between what is known and belongs to them and everything

else that is lsquoout therersquo The familiar is the ordered world the alien is a foreign chaotic space peopled

by ghosts demons and foreigners who are sub-human In support of this he cites three very

different cultures the Scandinavians colonising Iceland the Achilpa tribe of indigenous Australians

and the Vedic ritual for occupying a territory Whether the act of taking possession involved clearing

uncultivated ground or of conquering foreign cities he asserts that there is always an act of

repetition of cosmogony This thesis forms a plank in the construction of Sternrsquos argument as we

shall shortly see However Eliade is not without his critics Allen describing him as lsquomethodologically

uncritical arbitrary and subjectiversquo55 Further Eliadersquos inclination against Judeo-Christianity and his

association with fascist Germany may render some of his conclusions suspect On the whole Philip

Sternrsquos adoption of Eliadersquos findings has been somewhat uncritical

Mesha Stele We have already briefly considered the MI56 Sternrsquos translation of the text is in Appendix 5 The

central three lines read

lsquoI seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemoshrsquo57

54 Eliade 1959 pp 29-36 55 Allen 1988 p 545 56 It is noteworthy that Moab was outside the prescribed range of nations that were designated חרם by

Deuteronomy 7 and was also explicitly excepted on the grounds of kinship (Deut 29) There is hence no

biblical evidence that Moab was ever the subject of Israelite חרם the MI however provides evidence that

Israel was the subject of Moabite חרם

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

23

Stern understands this outpouring of blood in terms of a restoration of the physical and moral order

of the universe Forgoing the desire for plunder58 the Moabites are satisfying a deeper need to bring

an end to the cosmic disruption they experienced while under the oppression of Israel He

demonstrates the frequent use of בנה lsquobuildrsquo a word of cosmogonic significance within several ANE

creation myths such as Enuma Elish the Ugaritic Barsquoal epic and Genesis 222 lsquoThe MI depicts the

successful battle of Moab to overcome the forces of chaos such as Israel Gad and YHWH and to

restore order re-creating Moabite Weltordnungrsquo 59

In conclusion Stern considers that חרם is for the Moabites an intensely moral-religious act which

reasserts the victory of their god Kemosh over the chaos monsters of Israel and YHWH

and Hebrew roots with overlapping domains חרם

Stern further identifies four Moabite words used within the MI which have semantic domains

overlapping with חרם three of which are also important in biblical Hebrew60 They are as follows

אחז lsquocapture (used in OT in context of possession of the land but not in direct

conjunction with חרם)

גרש lsquoexpelrsquo (the conceptual association is seen in Deuteronomy 7102 where a similar

verb נשל is found in close conjunction with חרם lsquoWhen the LORD your God brings you

to the land you are entering to take possession of it and he drives out many nations from

before youhellip when the LORD your God gives them to you and you smite them you must

utterly perform ḥerem upon themrsquo)

הרג kill (compare Joshua 824 lsquoWhen Israel stopped killing all the inhabitants of Aihelliprsquo

with v26 lsquountil he had performed ḥerem on all the inhabitants of Airsquo)

ירש lsquodispossessrsquo

Taken together these words form what Stern calls a lsquomatrix of termsrsquo relating to the struggle for

land and a well-ordered existence

57 Stern 1991 p 33 58 Stern point out the emphatic placement of the maidens in the list of those undergoing חרם I even slew the

nubile young women as a marker of the kingrsquos devotion (Stern 1991 p 33) 59 ibid pp 41-41 60 ibid pp 46-49

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

24

Biblical use of חרם and order-out-of-chaos

Stern considers the biblical use of the hiphil of חרם to relate to the establishment of world order61

He sees חרם as an expression of the fundamental role of YHWH in partnership with Israel in creating

order out of chaos62 Hence Psalm 6013-14 (MT)

lsquoGive us help in distress For human salvation is worthless With God we will perform valiant feats And it is he who will trample our enemiesrsquo63

The conquest of Jericho

An important narrative in support of Sternrsquos thesis is the conquest of Jericho in Joshua 664 Creation

(of an ordered nation state within the land of promise) is only possible through the quelling of chaos

by the destruction of Jericho The narrative is told in a stylised fashion with six days of activity

followed by a distinct seventh day While Stern concedes that the number seven occurs very

frequently in ANE literature he argues that the separation of the first six days from the seventh and

the creation parallels as drawn out by Mircea Eliade strongly suggest a creation echo within the

seven-day narrative of Jericho In support of this he draws parallels not only with Genesis 1 and

Exodus 209 but also with the creation of Barsquoalrsquos house in Ugaritic literature where six days of fire

are succeeded by a seventh day of cooling He considers this myth in particular with both its

cosmogonic65 ideology and the use of fire and flame imagery to link the concepts of creation and

destruction

Stern extends this theory into Joshua 7 where Achan is found to have appropriated some of the spoil

and is stoned for the offence66 He likens Achanrsquos offence to the action of the serpent in Genesis 3

an eruption of the forces of chaos in defiance of the chaos-controlling act of creation In endangering

the whole community Achan has threatened the Weltordnung

61 Appendix 1 contains a table itemizing and giving the verb stem for every explicit use of חרם by the nation or

individuals of Israel within the legal and narrative portions of the OT 62 ibid p 106 63 ibid p 110 see also Josh 1012 64

ibid p 141 65 lsquodealing with the construction of order in the universersquo (ibid p 141) 66 ibid p 152ff

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

25

Saul and Agag

Stern considers the Saul-Agag narrative in 1 Samuel 15 to be one of the most important in the

testing of his theory of חרם as the creation of order out of chaos67 He sets out a three-stage

argument to reveal the Amalekite חרם as a unique necessity because of its cosmogonic meaning68

Firstly he understands the Exodus which lies at the origin of the Israel-Amalek conflict to be a

cosmogonic event likening it to the triumph of Barsquoal over Yamm in Ugaritic mythology also of the

victory of Marduk over Kingu in the Babylonian Creation Epic Hence the song of Moses contains

construction language lsquoYou brought them in and planted them in the mountain of your possession

the place that you made your abode O LORD the sanctuary O Lord that your hands establishedrsquo69

Additionally the expulsion of humans into the realm of chaos (Ex 155 lsquothe abyss covered them they

sank to the depths like a stonersquo) corresponds to the Egyptian view of warfare which returns the

enemy to a state of non-existence He also sees parallels in the Barsquoal-Yamm battle already alluded to

We might also note the imagery of Isaiah 519-10 which links the Red Sea narrative with the

destruction of Rahab the chaos monster and hence by inference creation

The second stage of Sternrsquos argument is that the actions of the Amalekites in attacking the stragglers

immediately after the Red Sea crossing (Ex 178ff Dt 2517-19) was an assault on the Weltordnung

of Israel He suggests that the use of ויזנב a piel verb form related to the noun זנב generally

rendered lsquoattack the rear 70 is a self-conscious allusion to the chaos monster and the twisting of the

tail of Tiamat in Enuma Elish In this way the action of Amalek might be likened to that of Achan and

of the serpent in the garden as discussed above

Therefore with Amalek defined perhaps archetypally as the enemy of YHWH (cf 1 Sam 3026) it

becomes clear why חרם is mandated against it and why Saul is so heavily condemned for failing to

accomplish this lsquoIt is as a uniquely dangerous and perpetual challenger to the divine order of YHWH

that the Amalekite nation appears in the Biblersquo71

Analysis and conclusions

Stern offers a plausible and generally well-argued thesis that biblical חרם in the context of war is

related to the cosmogonic activity of creating order out of chaos His assertions occasionally precede

67 ibid p 165 68 ibid p 170ff 69

Exodus 1517 70 The only other instance of this verb is in Joshua 1019 71 Stern 1991 p 174

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

26

the case for them (eg p40) and lean heavily on the ANE parallels which allow us insight into the

ancient albeit pagan world view Stern also draws somewhat uncritically upon the writings of Eliade

that territorial settling is cosmogony however there is biblical evidence in support of the thesis72

The main points which Stern uses to support his thesis are firstly the creation-building language in

the MI secondly the seven day conquest of Jericho and thirdly the cosmogonic implications of

Jericho and the Exodus with Genesis 3 imagery in the narratives of Achan and the Amalekites and

the ferocious crushing of these forces that stand in the way of the establishment of the nation state

of Israel

As a Jewish scholar Stern naturally does not trace this theme into the NT but the idea of the defeat

of the enemies of YHWH and the concept of new creation will not be unfamiliar to readers of the NT

and these will be considered further in Chapter 6

72 particularly in Isaiah see Harner 1967 p 304ff

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

27

Chapter 4 Hyung-Dae Park and redemption from חרם

In his PhD thesis of 2005 Hyung-Dae Park proposes a novel classification of חרם into mandatory and

voluntary types according to whether they are offered in response to a divine mandate or human

initiative People and goods designated for mandatory חרם are characterised as lsquoabominablersquo but

they may be redeemed from mandatory חרם However people and goods assigned to voluntary חרם

are lsquomost holyrsquo and no redemption is possible for them73

The Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם

Leviticus 27 which is a chapter about offerings made by vow to the Lord is central to Parkrsquos

understanding of voluntary 74 חרם The word appears as a noun hiphil verb and hophal verb in

verses 28 and 29 thus

28 However every ḥerem [חרם noun] which a man has made ḥerem to the LORD [ יחרם

hiphil verb] out of all that belongs to him from man or beast or a field he possesses it shall

not be sold and it shall not be redeemed Everything that is ḥerem [חרם noun] is most holy

to the LORD 29 Every ḥerem [חרם noun] man that is made ḥerem [ hophal verb] he יחרם

shall not be ransomed from death he shall be killed

Park sees these verses as the climax of chapter 27 where the strictest form of voluntary offering is

made In support of this thesis he notes that the offerings earlier in the chapter (v10142123)are

ק דש־קדשים are חרם whereas those things which are ק דש

It has been argued that verses 28 and 29 represent different situations perhaps driven by modern

sensibilities at the notion of offering humans as a voluntary offering to YHWH So Kalish considers

v29 to refer to judicial actions conducted by the authorities and Driver and Brekelmans link the

hophal יחרם to the same verb form in Exodus 2220 which would then relate the verse to mandatory

to use Parkrsquos taxonomy75 However Park convincingly argues that both the context of the חרם

chapter and the repeated use of the formula כל־חרם (twice in v28 once in v29) require us to

understand the two verses as a unity and refer to voluntary חרם

Numbers 18 sets out the portions of the offerings which belong to the Levites They are to be

supported out of that which is קדשים ק דש (v9) in particular כל־חרם is to belong to them (v14) Park

73

Park 2007 p 32) 74 ibid pp 21-24 75 These arguments summarised in Park 2007 p 21

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

28

argues that the use of the formula from Leviticus 27 כל־חרם and the emphasis that the Levites are to

receive what is most holy strongly suggest that this is referring to what is voluntary not mandatory

76חרם

From these two key passages Park derives the Pentateuchal law of voluntary חרם Objects and

people offered as voluntary חרם are most holy and for these there is no redemption ransom or

substitute All that is dedicated to the Lord belongs to the priests and Levites

We might recall the words of the Proverb writer

lsquoIt is a snare for a man to babble ldquoIt is holyrdquo And afterwards to consider the vowrsquo (2025)

The Pentateuchal law of mandatory חרם

Exodus 22 which forms part of the law given to Moses on the mountain contains an important

verse concerning חרם

lsquoThe one who sacrifices to gods shall be ḥerem unless he sacrifices+ to the LORD alonersquo (v19 MT)

Obviously this has clear links back to the first commandment in 203 lsquoYou shall have no other gods

before my facersquo but the theme of idolatry is prevalent throughout this covenant document

concluding in 3417 lsquoYou shall not make for yourselves cast idolsrsquo Park understands this to be an

important part of the Pentateuchal basis for the practice of 77 חרם idolaters are to be utterly

devoted to destruction

Another important text for the development of Parkrsquos understanding of mandatory חרם is

Deuteronomy 7 In verse 2 God says of the seven Canaanite nations lsquoWhen the Lord your God gives

them to you and you strike them down you shall utterly perform ḥerem upon them [ תחרים החרם ]

You shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not pity themrsquo Again at the end of the

chapter of the spoils God says lsquoYou shall not bring an abomination into your house or your will

become set apart for destruction like it You are to utterly detest it and utterly abhor it because it is

ḥeremrsquo (v26)

76 ibid pp 24-25 77 ibid pp 19-20

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

29

Perhaps in order to heighten the distinction between mandatory and voluntary חרם Park translates

belongs to the priests what is mandatory may חרם as lsquoyour templersquo Whereas what is voluntary ביתך

not be admitted to the sanctuary78

The distinction is clear enough in any case What is voluntary חרם is ק דש־קדשים (most holy) what is

mandatory חרם is תועבה (abomination)

Park sees an additional distinction between what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of pagan

nations and what becomes mandatory חרם in the case of apostate Israel Deuteronomy 72 26

2017 suggest that it is only people who are חרם in the case of the seven nations but 1312-18

prescribes חרם for people livestock and the belongings of any Israelite who entices others to

idolatry79 This distinction does not appear to be maintained in the former prophets however (eg 1

Sam 153)

The sin of Achan Park considers that the Jericho-Ai narrative contains some important themes which elucidate the

distinctions between voluntary and mandatory 80חרם

Firstly is the חרם of Jericho mandatory or voluntary By the application of the law of Deuteronomy

7 the people and idols of the city would be mandatory חרם but the animals and spoil would be

spared However in Joshua 617 Joshua commands the people that lsquothe city and all that is in it shall

be ḥerem to the LORD except Rahab the prostitutehelliprsquo Joshua thus designates the remainder of

Jericho voluntary חרם

There are two instances in this narrative of the חרם not being complete Firstly Rahab and her family

are rescued In this Park sees an instance of redemption from mandatory חרם as a result of lsquoaction

based on faith in the Lordrsquo81

78 ibid p 27 79

ibid p 30 80 ibid pp 32-37 81 ibid p 37

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

30

There is however no redemption possible from voluntary חרם so Achanrsquos theft of the spoil is

punishable by death More than that he has caused Israel to become חרם resulting in defeat in

battle

lsquoThe Sons of Israel are not able to stand against their enemies they turn their backs to

their enemies because they themselves have become ḥerem [לחרם] I will no longer be

with you until you destroy the ḥerem [החרם+ from your midstrsquo (Josh 712)

This theme of voluntary חרם being irredeemable and mandatory חרם being redeemable is central to

Parkrsquos thesis and will prove important to our own understanding of the subject

Saul and Agag Again we turn to 1 Samuel 15 In verse 3 we read Godrsquos instructions to Saul delivered by Samuel

lsquoNow go and smite Amalek and devote to destruction החרמתם] all that belongs to it Do not spare

it kill men and women children and nursing infants ox and sheep camels and donkeysrsquo Clearly this

is mandatory חרם but Park considers this to be a new class within this category as Amalek is

neither one of the seven nations nor Israel herself and the command to destroy exceeds that of

Deuteronomy 782

Evaluation of Parkrsquos hypothesis Parkrsquos classification has the advantage of being neat and simple but does it do justice to the uses of

in the OT Does his classification work without fail There are a number of passages which חרם

appear to defy the rule

Firstly it should be noted that in Joshua 1110-23 it is recorded that the Hivites escaped the

mandatory חרם of the Canaanites through trickery as recorded in Joshua 9 According to Parkrsquos

schema mandatory חרם can only be avoided on the basis of an act based on faith83 Might this be

considered a description of the Hivitesrsquo action Their explanation for their actions is set out in 924

lsquoThey replied to Joshua saying lsquoYour servants were most certainly informed that the LORD your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you the whole land and to exterminate all who live in the land from before you and we were greatly afraid for our lives because of you so we did this deceitrsquo

This is reminiscent of Rahabrsquos words to the spies in Josh 29-10

82 ibid p 41 83 ibid p 37

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

31

lsquoThen she said to the men lsquoI know that the LORD has given you the land and that the dread of you has fallen on us and that all who live in the land despair because of you For we have heard that the LORD dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came forth from Egypt and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were in the region of the Jordan to Sihon and Og whom you did ḥeremrsquo

The similarity of these two speeches might lead us to consider that the Hivites like Rahab act out of

faith in YHWH and are redeemed from mandatory חרם as a result Moreover although the biblical

writer is somewhat critical of Joshua for his decision Joshua apparently does not fall under the

Lordrsquos rebuke

A similar passage to this is found in 1 Kings 920-21 which reads

lsquoAll the people remaining from the Amorites the Hittites the Perizzites the Hivites and the Jebusites who were not from the sons of Israel - their descendents who remained after them in the land whom the sons of Israel were unable to ḥerem ndash Solomon led them out as forced labourers until this dayrsquo

It is of note that the aforementioned Hivites are within this list although there is no narrative to

account for the presence of the other nations and in particular there is no evidence that they

escaped חרם because of an act of faith in YHWH The biblical writer appears neutral on the matter at

this point84 although Solomon is in breach of the law of mandatory חרם Clearly matters in practice

were less clear than the Pentateuchal paradigms would suggest

The second passage of interest is Judges 2110 where the males and older women of Jabesh-Gilead

are subjected to חרם in order to provide virgin brides for the men of Benjamin an action performed

under the pretext of the non-appearance of the people of Jabesh-Gilead at the tribal meeting at

Mizpah Park plausibly classifies this as unlawful voluntary חרם being neither mandated by God

against the seven nations or apostate Israel nor conducted without redemption according to the law

of voluntary 85 חרם Again it would appear that the conduct of חרם is less scrupulously observed

than the Pentateuchal law would mandate

1 Kings 20 contains another important passage in which the law of חרם appears to be

compromised Ahab has conquered Ben-hadad the king of Aram and (we are retrospectively told

84 However Walsh sees this indifference to the law of חרם as ominously prefiguring Solomonrsquos later idolatry

(Walsh 1996 p 125) 85 Park 2007 pp 39-40

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

32

although we assume that Ahab was informed in advance86) God has marked him for חרם However

Ahab releases his lsquobrother kingrsquo thence follows a complex prophetic action and pronouncement

against him The consequence is that the sparing of Ben-hadad results in the forfeiture of Ahabrsquos

own life although this is not exacted but suspended

lsquoHe said to him ldquoThus says the LORD ldquoBecause you have released from your hand the man of my ḥerem your life shall be instead of his life your people instead of his peoplerdquordquorsquo (v42)

Is this really ransom from mandatory חרם by substitution as Park suggests87 The table below

shows all the instances where a person or object escapes חרם

Classification What or who was excepted

Divine sanction

Dt 722-26 Mandatory cultic objects Become חרם

Josh 617 Mandatory

Rahab None

Josh 618 711-12 Voluntary

Achanrsquos theft of a cloak and precious metal

Whole of Israel become

חרם

Defeat in battle Achan and his household and his belongings stoned and fired

Josh 9 Mandatory Hivites None Jdg 2110-12 Voluntary 400 virgins None 1 Sam 15 Mandatory Agag livestock Rejection of Saul as king

death of Agag 1 Kgs 921 Mandatory Amorites Hittites

Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

None

1 Kgs 2042 Mandatory Ben-hadad lsquoYour life for his lifersquo

No clear pattern emerges We note that in the mandatory cases of Rahab and the Hivites no

substitution was made but redemption was obtained through a faith-act The order of events in the

Ahab ndash Ben-hadad case would seem to imply that Ahabrsquos doom is punishment or forfeiture rather

than substitution post hoc Certainly it would appear that if the ransom from mandatory חרם is not

offered the one who breaches the commandment becomes חרם himself But returning to the Saul-

86 This is of course conjecture Park conjectures differently arguing that as Ahab was more evil than those who were before him (1 Kgs 1630) and has already declared fealty to Ben-hadad (204) he has forfeited the

right to be informed of the חרם order being subject to mandatory himself (ibid p 47) חרם 87 ibid p 48

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

33

Agag narrative for a moment which we considered in chapter 2 we note that although Agag was

subsequently struck down nevertheless Saul remained under Godrsquos punishment The case for

substitutionary ransom from mandatory ransom from mandatory חרם therefore appears to me to

be unclear

The final instance of aberrant חרם practice occurs in Ezra 10

lsquoAnyone who does not come within three days as according to the order of+ the council of leaders and elders all his property shall be ḥerem and he himself shall be separated from the assembly of the exilesrsquo

We note that although in this case it is the property which is explicitly חרם the lsquoseparationrsquo of the

culprits is also suggestive of חרם

Park makes little comment about this except to suggest that this offers a taste of the eschatological

community88 More pragmatically however it would appear that this is unlawful voluntary חרם

because there is no provision for such a חרם in the Levitical law

In conclusion Parkrsquos classification does not completely satisfy all the cases within the OT legal and

narrative writings In particular the idea of redemption from mandatory חרם by substitution and

punishment for infringement of voluntary חרם by becoming חרם appears less distinct than Park has

proposed Nonetheless it is a classification which has some use and we will consider it in relation to

the Cross in chapter 6

88 ibid p 71

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

34

Chapter 5 Excursus Reneacute Girard and scapegoating

This section provides a brief excursus into the work of the French anthropologist Reneacute Girard as his

model of mimesis and scapegoating may provide some insight into the problem of חרם

For Girard the root of all evil in human society is the breach of the tenth commandment lsquoYou shall

not covetrsquo He considers that all humans are born with the innate tendency to desire what is our

neighboursrsquo and terms this mimetic desire89

This desire grows within individuals and societies causing rivals to resemble one another in their

envy (mimetic doubling)90 Eventually something triggers a crisis this Girard terms the skandalon

and the rivalry erupts into a violent act as it did in what Girard terms lsquothe founding murderrsquo ndash that of

Abel91 After this violent act peace ensues for a time

The next stage comes when the community comes to understand the peace that ensued from this

violent act as in some way miraculous92 and seek to repeat it This violence may be cultic or profane

but Girard understands it as a foundational paradigm within all societies tracing it through primitive

myths the OT and NT and into our own societies93 The victims tend to be selected from those who

are in some way marginalised the disabled foreigner or misfit lsquoAll peoples have a tendency to

reject under some pretext or another the individuals who donrsquot fit their conception of what is

normal and acceptablersquo94

It is surprising that despite his detailed research into many primitive myths and the OT sacrificial

system Girard does not appear to have explicitly linked חרם with this process Nevertheless many

points of similarity may be identified95

The closest Girard comes to discussing חרם is in his brief reference to Deuteronomy 177 which

gives instructions for the treatment of a blasphemer

lsquoThe hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to execute him and the hands of all the people shall follow So you shall root out the evil from your midstrsquo

89 Girard 1999 p 10 90 ibid p 22 91 ibid p 16 92 which in many forms of his model but not the OT results in divination of the victim 93

Girard 1987 94 Girard 1999 p 26 95 Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

35

Girard understands the extirpation of the blasphemer from the community to be a replication of the

founding murder in order to purify the community from his evil 96

The similarity between this text and the action against Achan is evident Is Achan a victim by which

the community restores its equilibrium Philip Stern might express his own understanding of חרם as

a re-creation of order out of chaos in similar though not identical terms

It is interesting to note that the Girardian community regards its violent action upon the victim with

ambivalence at times as a sacred obligation and at other times as a criminal action engendering

peril 97 This latter may resonate with modern sensibilities towards חרם but is it biblical The

closest we come to ambivalence is probably in the actions of Saul and Ahab Although probing the

text for their motives is somewhat speculative we note Ahabrsquos words of compassion towards Ben-

hadad lsquoIs he still alive He is my brotherrsquo98

Fundamental to Girardrsquos theory is his belief that the OT and NT represent a continual journey away

from violence99 We will consider the atonement in the next chapter but with regard to the OT is

this assertion justified In terms purely of חרם there is little evidence that the writers are

embarrassed by it or that the attitude changes substantially with the development of the OT

writings Compare for example litany of חרם performed by Joshua in Joshua 10 and 11 with the

unapologetic words of Isaiah

lsquoFor the anger of the LORD is upon all the nations and his fury against all their armies he has declared them herem he has given them up for slaughterrsquo100

From our perspective however the most significant problem which Girardrsquos theory presents is the

biblical insistence that some חרם at least is mandated by YHWH101

In the sense that the scapegoat is sacrificed for the benefit of the community Girardrsquos work has

some overlap with Susan Niditchrsquos102 Likewise Girardrsquos model of the death of the scapegoat

restoring order to the community has common ground with Philip Sternrsquos hypothesis of חרם as

restoring order out of chaos

96 Girard 1987 p 172 97 Girard 1996 p 1971 98 1 Kings 2032 99 Weaver 2006 p 152 cf Wink 1992 p 146 100

Isaiah 342 101 eg Deut 72 102 cf Niditch 1993 pp 60-61

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

36

In conclusion although problems with Girardrsquos work remain unresolved and although we cannot

responsibly offer it as a unifying model for חרם nevertheless it may enrich our hermeneutic of

some of the חרם texts particularly in the light of the overlapping work of Susan Niditch and Philip

Stern

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

37

Chapter 6 Towards a biblical theology of חרם

There has been a relatively small amount of work that seeks to find links between OT חרם and NT

themes Exceptionally Hyung-Dae Park has examined Luke-Acts with regard to חרם and has some

observations on how חרם is part of Lukersquos atonement theology which are considered below

There are many models for the atonement including moral influence satisfaction penal

substitution and divine victory Theologians differ as to whether these models may be mutually

enlightening or mutually exclusive Many of these models relate in some form to the system of

Levitical sacrifice However many contemporary theologians have rejected what Wink has called the

lsquomyth of redemptive violencersquo103 which requires that God acted violently towards his Son on the

Cross104 The contribution which חרם may make to this debate has not been thoroughly explored

This chapter will begin to examine some of the possible strands of continuity between חרם and the

Cross It makes no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the atonement but it arises from the

conviction that responsible reading of scripture requires us to take the חרם passages seriously in

their biblical theological setting and from the hypothesis that careful reading of חרם especially in

the light of recent research will shed light on the violence of the Cross

Linguistic continuity The first question to ask is whether there is any evidence of linguistic continuity between OT and NT

with regard to חרם and its associated vocabulary Ideally this research would also include the

intertestamental literature but this is outside the scope of the paper The interested reader is

referred to Hyung-Dae Parkrsquos thorough analysis105

The LXX has a number of Greek equivalents to חרם many of which are used in the NT However

none of them has a very clear continuity of meaning between OT and NT in terms of חרם

There are five Greek words which are exclusively used to translate חרם in the LXX106 these are

ἀνάθεμα ἀναθεμασίζψ ἀνάθημα ἐξολέθπετμα and ὀλέθπιορ Of the first three which all possess a

common root the NT uses are much less specific than the LXX correlation might suggest and refer

either to cursing or being accursed (eg Rom 93) or to a religious offering (eg Lk 215) Of the

other two words ἐξολέθπετμα is not found in the NT and ὀλέθπιορ is used with regard to

destruction usually eschatological (eg 1 Thess 53)

103 Wink 1992 p 13ff 104 Of course this depends upon a non-Chalcedonian understanding of the Trinity where the anger of the Father is poured out upon Jesus an innocent third party (See for example Boersmarsquos comments in Sanders 2006 p 35) 105 Park 2007 pp 77-165 106 The frequency of usage is obtained from Park 2007 p 78ff

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

38

Of the other words used for חרם in the LXX the most likely candidate for continuity is ἀπόλλτμι

However this is used so frequently in both the LXX (30 times) and the NT (90 times) that it is hard to

identify any distinctive meaning which might relate a NT passage to חרם Thus for example God

sent Jesus that those who believe in him μὴ ἀπόλησαι (Jn 316) the Pharisees conspired together

ὅπψρ αὐσὸν ἀπολέςψςιν (Mt 1214) and we are told not to labour σὴν βπῶςιν σὴν ἀπολλτμένην (Jn

627)

There is therefore little evidence for linguistic continuity between the OT and NT in terms of חרם

However the lack of linguistic evidence does not preclude other forms of intertextuality such as

through narrative resemblance and theological concept These will be explored in the remainder of

this chapter

Conquest and Holy war imagery in the NT Willard Swartley has conducted an in-depth analysis on the synoptic gospels with regard to their use

of lsquoconquest of Canaanrsquo imagery107 In particular the middle section of Markrsquos gospel (827-1052)

contains seven uses of the noun δόρ (way) a word which is very important in the LXX account of

the exodus and conquest He notes for instance the similarities between the transfiguration of

Jesus and the theophany on Mount Sinai108 The journey to Jerusalem in Mark therefore might be

seen as paralleling the Israelite capture of Canaan lsquothe victory march of the divine warrior casting

down every obstacle as he made his triumphant way to Zionrsquo109 Unlike the people of Israel of

course the culmination of Jesusrsquo journey will not be victory over the cities of Canaan but the

apparent defeat of the Cross

The broader study of Holy War as opposed to חרם itself has been beyond the scope of this paper

However the link between Holy War and the Day of the LORD110 has been demonstrated by von

Rad111 If we remind ourselves that חרם was the culmination of Holy War112 it does not seem fanciful

to see the Cross as in some way paralleling חרם We have already commented that the Holy War

traditions in the OT is diverse and at times ambiguous however it is noteworthy that in some of the

Holy War paradigms YHWH is seen to act for his people entirely without their assistance113 (eg the

crossing at the Red Sea the defeat of Sennacherib114) as Jesus does at the Cross The continuity

107 Swartley 1994 pp 95-153 108 ibid p 103ff 109 Marcus 1992 p 37 110 An OT term mainly employed in the prophets and generally understood by NT writers to refer to the triumphant return of Jesus eg 1 Thessalonians 52 111 von Rad 1965 pp 119-25 112

de Vaux 1961 p 260 113 Lind 1980 p 170 114 Ex 1413-14 2 Ki 1932-35

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

39

between Holy War (which includes חרם) and the Cross has been remarked on by William Brownlee

who writes of the transformation of the paradigm

lsquofrom the institution of Holy War with its herem to the divine-human Warrior Who gives His life for the salvation of the whole world including his own enemies Yet between the herem and the Cross there is not simply contrast a radical break with the substitution of one for the other but a theological continuity whereby in the history of Holy War the one led to the otherrsquo115

It is this theological continuity which this chapter will attempt to probe We will consider in turn

each of the models of חרם which we have examined in this paper

Sacrifice In the OT sacrifice may be offered for a number of reasons to offer thanksgiving to establish or

renew a covenant to procure forgiveness or cleansing and for communion with God It had both

literal and metaphorical significance it was both slaughter and prayer116

The NT use of sacrificial imagery for the atonement is falling from favour in some circles today in the

light of modern sensibilities However the model of atonement as sacrifice is indisputably biblical

although this does not make the typology simple The writer to the Hebrews uses Yom Kippur

imagery (Heb 9 cf Lev 16) Johnrsquos gospel speaks in terms of Passover (1914) and sin offering (129)

Of equal significance is the observation that the lsquosacrificersquo images of the Cross transcend the

Levitical-lay divide So the writer to the Hebrews speaks both of the Aaronic High Priest (911) and of

the pre-Levitical priest Melchizedek (chapter 7) Sacrifice itself originates in the OT in Genesis 4 well

before the Sinai covenant and establishment of the priesthood

So does the understanding of חרם as sacrifice bring any additional illumination to the atonement As

with other forms of sacrifice we would expect Jesus to be both the one conducting the חרם and the

one who undergoes חרם

What is immediately striking is that חרם provides a possible framework in which human sacrifice is

acceptable Although some non- OT texts flirt with human sacrifice it is nowhere condoned חרם

(with the arguable exception of the near-sacrifice of Isaac at Godrsquos command) in a number of places

it is explicitly condemned in Levitical law or the prophets (eg Deut 1810)

Niditch has shown that in the ancient world חרם functioned as an act of devotion cleansing and

propitiation also to win a favour from a god Clearly most of these would be in direct continuity

115 Brownlee 1983 p 191 116 Gunton 1988 p 123

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

40

with the NT understanding of atonement as sacrifice The possible exception is חרם as devotion

Does the NT give us permission to see the Cross as an act of devotion by Jesus akin to the war vow

of the OT

Unlike John the Baptist there is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the vow of a Nazarite Is there

suggestion elsewhere of Jesus fulfilling a vow before God One possible candidate is Luke 951 lsquohe

set his face to go to Jerusalemrsquo which to modern ears t least has the feel of a solemn decision

perhaps a vow However the phrase ςσηπίζψ σὸ ππόςψπον is used exclusively in the LXX in Jeremiah

and Ezekiel and always refers to God or his prophet setting his face against a place in judgment or

condemnation Nor is the expression used anywhere else in the NT so there is no justification from

the LXX or NT for inferring a vow from this passage This is an area where future research may

suggest fresh lines of enquiry

To conclude it is possible that this concept of the atonement might broaden our understanding of

the Cross but it will clearly never become one of the major sacrificial models the NT being much

more explicit about Passover sin offering and Yom Kippur However it does offer a putative model

where Jesus becomes voluntary חרם as substitution for his people who are mandatory חרם and it

offers a framework in which human sacrifice becomes a plausible means of Godrsquos action

Order out of chaos In 1953 Gustav Aulen published his now classic lsquoChristus Victorrsquo in which he claimed to have

rediscovered the central element of the atonement namely the victory of Christ over the evil

powers of the world through the Cross117 His theory has gained currency in modern times

particularly in the hands of theologians such as Walter Wink118

However the interpretation of the central text of Aulenrsquos thesis (Col 215) has been called into

question Wesley Carr has argued that Paulrsquos language is that of the victorious general who is

accompanied by his angelic forces lsquovictory withrsquo rather than lsquovictory overrsquo119 although this is by no

means universally accepted120

In either case the victory imagery is clear but linguistic analysis reveals that Paulrsquos language in these

passages owes nothing to the battle accounts of the LXX his imagery is closely related to the victory

parade of the Roman general121 Additionally it must be noted that Paulrsquos use of victory imagery is

117 Aulen 1953 118 Wink 1992 pp 139-156 119

Carr 1981 p 47ff 120 Dunn 1996 p 169 121 Witherington 1995 p 367ff

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

41

curiously mixed with the language of defeat (eg 1 Cor 49 2 Cor 214) it is through the suffering of

Godrsquos Son and thereafter the suffering of his apostles that victory is achieved and celebrated

However the notion of Christ as a victorious warrior is an important one in the NT not least in the

book of Revelation where the defeat of the dragon results in the creation of the new heavens the

new earth The image of the dragon (chapters 12 and 20) is closely linked with the ancient chaos

monsters of Ugaritic and Babylonian mythology122 It is through the defeat of Tiamat the Babylonian

chaos monster that Marduk creates the earth123 likewise the defeat of Yam or Lotan by Barsquoal in

Canaanite mythology is probably to be understood as a creative act124 Traces of this creation-out-of

chaos mythology remain in the biblical account of creation125 where Elohim creates the heavens and

the earth from a world that is ת הו וב הו and where his spirit hovers על־פני המים (Gen 12)

We might note also that John whose cosmogonic prologue has echoes throughout his gospel firmly

sets the resurrection μιᾷ σῶν ςαββάσψν (Jn 201 19) which NT Wright understands as indisputably

creational language The Son of God lsquorestedrsquo in the tomb on the seventh day on the first (eighth)

day lsquoMary comes to the tomb while it is still dark and discovers the new light and life which has

defeated the darknessrsquo126

This concept of the defeat of the chaos monster and new creation is central to Philip Sternrsquos thesis of

considered in chapter 3 evidence for which included Eliadersquos thesis of land settling as a חרם

cosmogonic event the seven day cycle of Jericho the twin concepts of destruction and creation in

ANE thought the חרם of the Amalekites as akin to the slaying of the chaos monster and the

establishment (creation) of Israel by means of חרם also mirrored in the language of the Mesha

Stele

It therefore seems likely that חרם rather than offering a novel model of the atonement is a largely

unnoticed part of a greater trajectory of creation through the subduing of chaos which begins in

Genesis 1 is revisited at the Flood is re-enacted every time the people of God settle in a new place

and conduct חרם is definitively achieved at the Cross and will ultimately be accomplished at the

122 Bauckham 1993 pp 185-198 Finamore 2009 p 1ff 123 Alster 1999 124

Uehlinger 1999 125 Gunkel 1997 pp 103-5 126 Wright 2003 p 667

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

42

eschaton This may deepen our appreciation of the Christus Victor model of the atonement and link

it with the Johannine127 new creation theology

Jesus as voluntary and mandatory חרם

In chapter 4 we examined the work of Hyung-Dae Park in relation to voluntary and mandatory חרם

and redemption therefrom However the bulk of his work explores Luke-Acts and its interaction

with the concepts and vocabulary of חרם Much of his research focuses on the ethics of Acts eg the

Ananias and Sapphira pericope but he also offers evidence that Luke wants to present Jesus as חרם

At times the grid of חרם which Park is applying to Luke appears to constrain rather than illuminate

his hermeneutic For example he sees in the confession of guilt by the thief on the cross128 an

allusion to him as mandatory 129 חרם where the plain reading would not seem to require such a

meaning

Park also sees a parallel with the use of to describe the death of Jesus in Acts 1029 and

Joshua 111217 1217130 חרם being an important theme in Joshua 11 and by extension chapter

12131

Parkrsquos classification of חרם which I have argued is not as well-supported by the biblical evidence as

he wishes to affirm is further challenged by his understanding of Jesus both as a special sort of

mandatory חרם initiated by God but for unique reasons132 and as voluntary חרם willingly offering

himself and in his ascension being brought to the sanctuary133

It is of course not unreasonable to understand Jesus as a special case as a paradigm breaker

Certainly there is at the Cross that unique and profoundly incomprehensible mix of Jesus being

abhorrent to the father and delighting him at once detestable and most holy There is too the

curious combination of the two outcomes of חרם destruction and being brought to the sanctuary

127 I use lsquoJohanninersquo to refer to the whole Johannine corpus including Revelation 128 Luke 2141 129 Park 2007 p 220 130 ibid p 215 131

ibid p 215 132 ibid p 221 133 ibid p 252

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

43

In order to examine Parkrsquos thesis further I offer two test cases where he has identified

intertextuality suggestive of חרם in the NT

Test case 1 Luke 117

Luke 117 is a strong candidate for finding חרם language and imagery in the NT reflecting as it does

the final verses of Malachi in the MT (although the corresponding verses are found earlier in Malachi

in the LXX)

lsquoHe will be great before the Lord he shall not drink wine or strong drink and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his motherrsquos womb He will go before him the Lord+ in the spirit and power of Elijah he will turn the hearts of fathers to childrenrsquo Luke 115-17

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes he will restore the heart of a father to a son and the heart of a man to his neighbour so that I do not come and utterly smite the landrsquo Malachi 321-23 LXX

lsquoBehold I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes And he will return the heart of fathers to sons and the heart of sons to their fathers lest I come and smite the land with heremrsquo Malachi 46 MT

Park comments on the changes which Luke has made to the LXX text largely from singular to plural

which he understands to be indicative of Lukersquos wish to broaden the prophetrsquos concern from human-

human relationships to the human-Lord relationship 134

However he has perhaps not drawn out the fuller implications of this passage Firstly Johnrsquos

conscription to the Nazarite order with its elements of both separation and vow is strongly

suggestive of voluntary חרם Secondly the Baptistrsquos later emphasis on judgment by fire (eg Lk

3917) is also reminiscent of the כליל ndashmandatory חרם association seen in Deuteronomy 1315-

18135

But the allusion to Malachirsquos prophecy concerning Elijah suggests something more significant that

the Baptist and the gospel he heralds function to preserve the nation from becoming mandatory

חרם136

134 ibid p 9ff 135 Stern 1991 p 107ff 136 Park does suggest that the gospel of Luke as a whole understands Israel to be mandatory חרם However in

places his argument appears implausible in particular his understanding that the lost coin sheep and son

present Israel as separated and thus mandatory חרם (Park 2007 p 176) However the point of separation in

the OT is that it is voluntary חרם lsquounto the Lordrsquo not mandatory חרם lsquofrom the Lordrsquo

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

44

If this is true then we might expect Lukersquos annunciation of Jesus to carry something of the language

of voluntary חרם Examination of the passage reveals that although Lukersquos preoccupation is with

Jesus as Godrsquos son and king verse 35 has him called lsquoholyrsquo137 which might suggest the ק דש of what

is voluntary 138 חרם

The case has not been proven and there is scope for further research in this area but it is possible

that Luke 117 serves as a pointer to the dedication of Jesus and John as voluntary חרם

(remembering that according to Parkrsquos analysis that which is voluntary חרם cannot be ransomed) in

order to save the people who are subject to mandatory חרם (which can be ransomed)

Test case 2 Joshua 829 1026

In support of his understanding of Jesus as חרם (with elements of both mandatory and voluntary)

Park offers the following two texts139

lsquoAnd he hanged the king of Ai on the tree until evening time and at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought his corpse down from the tree and they threw it down at the entrance gate of the city and they raised over it a great heap of stones to this dayrsquo Joshua 829 MT

lsquoJoshua+ killed them and hung them on five trees and they hung on the trees until evening And at sunset Joshua commanded and they brought them down from the trees and threw them into the cave they had hidden in and they put great stones over the mouth of the cave to this very dayrsquo Joshua 1026

These two pericopes are part of the broader חרם narratives of Joshua Joshuarsquos command to bring

down the bodies at sunset owes its origin to Deuteronomy 2123 lsquoThe corpse shall not remain

overnight on the tree you shall certainly bury it on that day For cursed by God is anyone who is

hanged on a treersquo Superficial similarity with the synoptic accounts140 of the death and burial of Jesus

are evident Because the limitations of his thesis Park only considers them in relation to Luke (where

the case is weaker Luke not mentioning the stone at the point of Jesusrsquo burial) we are not bound by

the same constraints

137 cf Luke 223 434 138 However Nolland sees in this phrase an echo of Isaiah 43 (Nolland 2002 p 54) which does not obviously

refer to חרם 139 Park 2007 p 215 140 particularly Matthew 2759-60 and Mark 1546

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

45

Are these putative points of intertextuality intentional Hays gives seven criteria for assessing

possible intertextuality141 as shown in the table

H ysrsquo c ite i fo ssessing inte textu lity

availability of the intertext to the original readers of the text

volume the number of explicit repetitions of words or syntactical patterns

recurrence how many times the author refers to the intertext elsewhere

thematic coherence how well the intertext fits into the argument of the text

plausibility the likelihood that the meaning effect would have been understood by

the original readers of the text

history of

interpretation

self-explanatory

satisfaction whether the proposed intertextuality provide a satisfying account of the

intertextual relationship

On the assumption (which I would not wish to contest) that the placing of the stone over the mouth

of Jesusrsquo tomb was a historical event are we to believe that the Matthew and Mark recorded it in a

particular way to reflect the Joshua passage ίθορ is a standard word and we would expect it to be

used in the LXX and NT contexts By contrast the cave in Joshua 10 is ςπήλαιον but in each of the

gospel accounts the tomb is μνημε ον If the gospel writers had wished to be more explicit in their

reference to the Joshua accounts it is plausible that they would have chosen ςπήλαιον (it is used of

Lazarusrsquo tomb in John 1138) they could also have used ξ λον142 instead of ςσατπόρ at some point in

the narrative as Luke does in Acts

It seems to me that this postulated intertextuality between the Matthean and Markan accounts fails

on Haysrsquo criteria of recurrence and plausibility additionally I have been unable to find any evidence

that this interpretation was understood by the early church143

Paul of course explicitly quotes Deuteronomy 2123 in Galatians 313 bringing the concepts of

Jesus being cursed by God into the NT However ארור the Hebrew equivalent of πικασάπασορ is

not associated with חרם in the MT Additionally there is no evidence of Paul making a direct

141 Hays 1993 pp 29-32 142 Luke uses ξ λον in Acts but not in the passion account in his gospel His use of ξ λον in Acts is not associated with other vocabulary associated with the Joshua accounts 143 Search conducted on the electronic version (Logos software) of the collected works of the Ante-Nicene Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

46

allusion to the Joshua passages so we must conclude that any attempt to read חרם into this text is

tenuous

The idea of Jesus as חרם in substitution for Israel is effectively an alternative version of

substitutionary atonement since the reason for becoming mandatory חרם was idolatry It is

possible that this is reflected in Mark 1045 and 1 Kings 2042 which are linked by the concept of

lsquoone for manyrsquo144 The context of the OT passage is the rebuke of Ahab by the unnamed prophet for

failing to conduct חרם against Ben-hadad Ahab is told that his own life is now forfeit in lieu of Ben-

hadadrsquos The similarity is best illustrated by comparing the Greek texts

καὶ γὰπ τἱὸρ σοῦ ἀνθπώποτ οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆςαι καὶ δοῦναι

σὴν χτφὴν αὐσοῦ λ σπον ἀνσὶ πολλῶν (Mk 1045)

καὶ εἶπεν ππὸρ αὐσόν Τάδε λέγει κ πιορ Διόσι ἐξήνεγκαρ ςὺ ἄνδπα ὀλέθπιον ἐκ

φειπόρ ςοτ καὶ ἔςσαι ἡ χτφή ςοτ ἀνσὶ σῆρ χτφῆρ αὐσοῦ καὶ λαόρ ςοτ ἀνσὶ σοῦ

λαοῦ αὐσοῦ (1 Kgs 2042)

In summary then there is some evidence that Jesus is to be understood as in substitution for רםח

Israel which is mandatory חרם Although some of Parkrsquos points appear to me to be strained the

overall weight of evidence would suggest that his thesis has some validity and there is a good case

for further research in the remainder of the NT

Scapegoating

In distinction to his silence on חרם Girard has a great deal to say about the Cross In his model the

death of Jesus exposes the scapegoat mechanism and demonstrates the innocence not just of Jesus

but of all victims In so doing he breaks the cycle of mimetic violence and demonstrates an

alternative possibility of a society without mimetic violence145 In this sense his atonement theory

(and we should remember that he is an anthropologist not a theologian) is something between

Abelardrsquos moral influence and Christus Victor146 Despite his tendency to reductionism147 Girardrsquos

144 Park 2007 p 256 It is more generally understood to be an echo of Isaiah 434 and 5310-12 (Beale amp Carson 2007 p 203) 145

Girard 1999 p 43ff 146 Daniels 2006 p 136 147 Finamore 2009 p 128

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

47

theory of the atonement cannot be taken as totalising by a serious student of the Bible it fails to

address why Jesus had to die it cannot provide relief from guilt and it is unable to account for the

many biblical texts which speak of Jesusrsquo death as sacrifice148 Nonetheless it provides another

possible model by which חרם and the Cross might be linked and if this is the case it may contribute

some additional insight into both

What Girard offers us is a hermeneutic of the victim lsquoThere is within the Bible a thread of texts

many of which have been identified by Girard which take the perspective of the victim for their

ownrsquo149 This thread of texts which would include some of the חרם passages and supremely the

Cross invites us to read from the perspective of the victim

So we may discover that inasmuch as the victims of חרם are scapegoats allowing cleansing of the

community and the restoration of order we see in Jesus the culmination of that thread the ultimate

scapegoat whose innocent death cleanses and restores order Here we find that Girardrsquos reading is

not dissimilar to Sternrsquos order-out-of-chaos or indeed of Niditchrsquos חרם ndashas-sacrifice

Reading backwards This reading offers us an interesting possibility It invites us to look backwards from the Cross at the

how would each of our rsquo חרם passages If we were to pose the question lsquoWhere is God in חרם

theories answer Jean Calvin will say God is the subject commanding חרם as punishment for sin

Philip Stern would tell us that God was in Christ forming a new creation and that חרם is a model for

that conquest of evil and establishment of the new order Susan Niditch suggests that God is the

indirect object of חרם it is performed for him to please him But Hyung-Dae Park and Reneacute Girard

will tell us that just as Jesus was himself חרם the scapegoat so God is to be found as the direct

object of חרם identified with the victims Perhaps none of these offers the whole answer but they

all carry biblical plausibility

148 Vanhoozer 2004 pp 389-90 Finamore 2009 p 127 149 ibid p 129

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

48

Chapter 7 Conclusion This paper has sought to address the question of the theological meaning of חרם both in its original

context and as part of the broader biblical theological context I would like to highlight three

significant areas of limitation in its scope

Firstly I have not been concerned with the historicity of the events in question taking the view that

the theological import will be very similar whether or not they actually occurred In fact

archaeological evidence has been found for at least one incident of חרם in the ANE150

The paper has also not been unduly preoccupied with source criticism of the examined texts taking

Childrsquos view that the final redactor shaped canon as much as the individual writers

Thirdly the paper has been unable to do justice to the larger subject of YHWH war and Holy War of

which חרם is a part These are much larger subjects beyond the scope of the particular question I

set out to answer

Within the limitations then of the paper the concept of חרם has been examined in particular in

relation to three novel interpretations published recently חרם as sacrifice חרם as order-out-of-

chaos and the concept of voluntary or mandatory חרם with redemption possible from the

mandatory but not the voluntary type In addition a brief consideration has been given to the work

of Reneacute Girard and its possible relationship to the subject

I have sought to trace into the NT the trajectories represented by these models with particular

reference to the Cross I have concluded that חרם may enrich our understanding of the Cross as

sacrifice that the Christus Victor model of the atonement and the Johannine understanding of the

New Creation might be linked to the biblical trajectory of חרם and that there is some evidence to

understand Jesus as a special type of חרם offered as substitute for Israel which is mandatory חרם

Girardrsquos theory of scapegoating was also applied to the problem and despite its reductionism and

indifference to the biblical witness in favour of חרם it may further enrich our understanding of the

Cross in the light of חרם

I make no claim that חרם is a controlling metaphor for the Cross within the biblical narrative the

church appears to have managed well for 2000 years without this particular understanding

150 Stern 1991 p 65

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

49

However it seems that חרם may have something to say to us that will enrich our current

understanding of the atonement Additionally when חרם is re-examined in the light of the Cross a

deeper theological appreciation may be gained

Will this satisfy the anxious member of my congregation who prompted the study Probably not But

these insights will I hope enable me to speak more sensitively on the subject with a better

appreciation for the rich theological meaning it embodies and a renewed conviction that

uncomfortable as the חרם passages will always be they are there for a purpose

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

50

Bibliography Allen D (1988) Eliade and History The Journal of Religion 68 (4) 545-565

Alster B (1999) Tiamat In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd

ed pp 867-869) Michigan Eerdmans

Aulen G (1953) Christus Victor An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the

atonement London SPCK

Balentine S (2003) Leviticus (Interpretation) Louisville John Knox

Bauckham R (1993) The Climax of Prophecy Studies in the book of Revelation Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Beale G K amp Carson D A (2007) Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament

Nottingham Baker Academic

Blocher H (2002) Agnus Victor The atonement as victory and vicarious punishment In J

Stackhouse (Ed) What Does it Mean to be Saved Broadening evangelical horizons of salvation (pp

67-94) Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Boersma H (2004) Violence Hospitality and the Cross Reappropriating the atonement tradition

Grand Rapids Baker Academic

Brownlee W (1983) From Holy War to Holy Martyrdom In H Huffmon F Spina amp A Green

(Eds) The Quest for the Kingdom of God Studies in honor of George E Mendenhall (pp 281-292)

Winona Lake Eisenbrauns

Brueggemann W (2009) Divine Presence and Violence Contextualising the book of Joshua Eugene

Cascade

Butler T (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Joshua (Vol 7) Dallas Word Inc

Calvin J (1963) Commentaries on the Book of Joshua (H Beveridge Trans) Eerdmans Grand

Rapids

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Calvin J amp Bingham C (1950) Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the

Form of a Harmony (Vol 3) (C Bingham Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Carr W (1981) Angels and Principalities The background meaning and development of the Pauline

phrase hai archai kai hai exousiai Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Carroll R (1991) The Bible as a Problem for Christianity Philadelphia Trinity Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments London SCM Press

Childs B (1992) Biblical Theology A proposal Minneapolis Fortress

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

51

Christensen D (2002) Word Biblical Commentary Deuteronomy 1-219 (Vol 6A) Dallas Word Inc

Collins J (2003) The Zeal of Phinehas The Bible and the legitimation of violence JBL 122 1-21

Craigie P (1978) The Problem of War in the Old Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Daniels T S (2006) Passing the Peace Worship that shapes non-substitutionary convictions In J

Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation (pp 125-150) Nashville

Abingdon

de Prenter J (nd) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Prenter J (undated) The Contrastive Polysemous Meaning of Ḥērem in the Book of Joshua A

Cognitive Linguistic Approach Retrieved April 5 2011 from Lirias

httpsliriaskuleuvenbebitstream1234567893017391artikel+BETL+definitiefpdf

de Vaux R (1961) Ancient Israel Its life and institutions (J McHugh Trans) London Darton

Longman and Todd

DeVries S (2003) 1 Kings Word Biblical Commentary Dallas Thomas Nelson

Dunn J (1996) The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon A commentary on the Greek text

Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Eliade M (1958) Patterns in Comparative Religion London Sheed and Ward

Eliade M (1959) The Sacred and the Profane The nature of religion New York Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich

Finamore S (2009) od rder and haos en irard and the A o al se Milton Keynes

Paternoster

Fowler M (1987) The Meaning of lipnecirc YHWH in the Old Testament Zeitschrift fuumlr die

alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 384-390

Gelb I (1973) Prisoners of war in early Mesopotamia Journal of near Eastern Studies 32 (12)

70-98

Gevirtz S (1963) Jericho and Shechem A religio-literary aspect of city destruction Vetus

Testamentum XIII (1) 52-62

Girard R (1999) I See Satan Fall like Lightning (J Williams Trans) Maryknoll Orbis

Girard R (1996) The Girard Reader (J Williams Ed) New York Crossroad Publishing

Girard R (1987) Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (S Bann amp M Metteer Trans)

London Continuum

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

52

Gottwald N (1976) Holy War In K Crim (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Supplementary

Volume (pp 942-944) Nashville Abingdon

Greenberg M (1972) ḤEREM In C Roth Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol 8 pp 344-350) Jerusalem

Keter Publishing House

Gunkel H (1997) Genesis translated and interpreted (M Biddle Trans) Macon Mercer

Gunton C (1988) The Actuality of the Atonement A study of metaphor rationality and the Christian

tradition London TampT Clark

Harner P (1967) Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah Vetus Testamentum 17 (3) 298-306

Hays R (1993) Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul New Haven Yale University Press

Hobbs T R (1989) A Time for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hobbs T R (1989) A TIme for War A study of warfare in the Old Testament Wilmington Michael

Glazier

Hooker T amp Hooker L (2005) Sumer Origins Civilisations and Myths Retrieved March 4 2011

from Proceedings of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution volume 9

httpwwwbrlsiorgproceed05antiquity1104html

Jeffery S Ovey M amp Sach A (2007) Pierced for our Transgressions Rediscovering the glory of the

atonement Nottingham IVP

Jones G (1975) Holy War or Yahweh War Vetus Testamentum XXV (Fasc 3) 642-658

Kang S (1989) Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East Berlin Walter de

Gruyter

Koehler L Baumgartner W Richardson M amp amp Stamm J J (1999) The Hebrew and Aramaic

Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed) Leiden EJ Brill

Levine B (1974) In the Presence of the Lord A sudy of cult and some cultic terms in ancent Israel

Leiden Brill

Lewis P (2009) Language family trees Afro-Asiatic Semitic Central Arabic Eastern Retrieved Mar

4 2011 from Ethonologue Languages of the world

httpwwwethnologuecomshow_familyaspsubid=1192-16

Lilley J (1993) Understanding the Herem Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1) 169-177

Lind M (1980) Yahweh is a Warrior Kitchener Herald Press

Lohfink N (1986) ḥāram In H R GJ Botterweck (Ed) Theological Dictionary of the Old

Testament (D Green Trans Vol V pp 180-199) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

53

Longman T (2001) Warfare In T D Alexander (Ed) New dictionary of biblical theology

(electronic ed) Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

Longman T amp Reid D (1995) God is a Warrior Carlisle Paternoster

Marcus J (1992) The Way of the Lord Christological exegesis of the Old Testament in the gospel of

Mark Edinburgh TampT Clark

Merrill E (2003) The Case for Moderate Discontinuity In S Gundry (Ed) Grand Rapids

Zondervan

Militarev A (2004) Семитологам и Хамитологам Retrieved Mar 4 2011 from

httpcommunitylivejournalcomterra_linguarum95880htmlthread=3613320t3613320

Montgomery J (1951) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings Edinburgh TampT

Clark

Niditch S (1993) War in the Hebrew Bible A Study in the Ethics of Violence Oxford Oxford

University Press

Origen (1862) Homiliae in Librum Jesum Nave In M JP Patrologiae cursus completus (pp 825-

948) Harvard University

Park H (2007) Finding Herem A study of Luke-Acts in the light of herem London T amp T Clark

Pope M (1962) Devoted In G Buttrick (Ed) Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (pp 838-839)

New York Abingdon

Pritchard J (1958) The Ancient near East An Anthology of Texts and Pictures Oxford Oxford

University Press

Quartz Hill School of Theology (nd) Ugarit and the Bible Retrieved March 3 2011 from Quartz Hill

School of Theology httpwwwtheologyeduugarbibhtm

Rad v (1965) Old Testament Theology (Vol 2) Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd

Sanders J (2006) Atonement and Violence A theological conversation Abingdon Nashville

Seibert E (2009) Disturbing Divine Behaviour Troubling Old Testament images of God

Minneapolis Fortress

Seitz C (2005) Canonical Approach In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation

of the Bible (pp 100-102) Grand Rapids Baker

Sheppard G T (1998) Childs Brevard In McKim (Ed) Historical Handbook of the Major Biblical

Interpreters (pp 575-584) Downers Grove IVP

Smend R (1970) Yahweh War and Tribal ConfederationReflections upon Israels Earliest History

(2nd ed) (M Rogers Trans) Nashville Abingdon Press

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

54

Smith M (1975) A Note on Burning Babies Journal of the American Oriental Society 93 (3) 477-

479

Smith W (1927) The Religion of the Semites (3rd ed) London A amp C Black

Stern P (1991) The Biblical Herem A window on Israels religious experience Atlanta Scholars

Press

Swartley W M (1994) Israels Scripture Traditions and the Synoptic Gospels Peabody Hendrickson

Uehlinger C (1999) Leviathan In B B K Toorn (Ed) Dictionaries of Deities and Demons in the

Bible (2nd ed pp 511-515) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Vanhoozer K (2004) The Atonement in Postmodernity Guilt goats and gifts In C Hill amp F James

(Eds) The Glory of the Atonement Biblical Theological and Practical Perpectives (pp 367-404)

Downers Grove InterVarsity Press

von Rad G (1958) Holy War in Ancient Israel (M Dawn Trans) Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Walsh J (1996) 1 Kings Collegeville Liturgical

Weaver J D (2006) Response to T Scott Daniels In J Sanders (Ed) Atonement and Violence A

theological conversation (pp 151-153) Nashville Abingdon

Webster J Canon In K Vanhoozer (Ed) Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (pp

97-100) Grand Rapids Baker

Weinfeld M (1972) Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School Oxford Clarendon

Williams J (1991) The Bible Violence and the Sacred Liberated from the myth of sanctioned

violence San Francisco Harper

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Augsburg

Wink W (1992) Engaging the Powers Discernment and resistance in a world of domination

Minneapolis Fortress Press

Witherington B (1995) Conflict and Community in Corinth A socio-rhetorical commentary on 1 and

2 Corinthians Grand Rapids Eerdmans

Wright N (2003) The Resurrection of the Son of God London SPCK

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

55

Appendix 1 Use of lsquoחרםrsquo in the legal and narrative portions of the OT

Below is a table itemizing every explicit use151 of the word by the nation or individuals of Israel חרם

within the legal and narrative portions of the OT152

Initiating agent

Object of חרם Redemption Outcome Designation holy or abomination

Noun or verb form

Ex 2219 God Idolater hophal

Lev 2721 Owner field Acquired by priest hood

noun

Lev 2728 29

Owner Man beast field Prohibited Humans put to death

Most holy Noun Hiphal v28 Hophal v29

Num 1814 Worshippers Belong to the priesthood

Holy Noun

Num 212-3

People of Israel

Canaanites and their cities

hiphil

Dt 234-35 Josh 210 cf Num 2121-32

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Sihon the Amorite men women and children Livestock and spoil excluded

No survivors hiphil

Dt 36 Josh 210 cf Num 2133-35

God by implication of Deut 71-2

Cities of Og King of Bashan men Women children livestock and spoil excluded

153

No survivors hiphil

Dt 71-2 God People cultic apparatus

Mercy prohibited

Death Destruction of idols and cultic apparatus

By implication dangerous

hiphil

151 This is exemplified by Joshuarsquos conquest itinerary in Joshua 1028ff The similarity between the accounts of

the different cities conquered makes it clear that חרם is occurring in each case although not always explicitly 152 I have limited this to law and narrative because the use of חרם in the poetic and prophetic writings is

mostly metaphorical and would not advance the investigation in hand 153

Contra most translations Christensen suggests that the verse splits after ם indicated by a strong) מת

disjunctive ṭocircn ) which would render the sense lsquoutterly destroying the men But the women

children livestock and plunder we kept as spoilrsquo (Christensen 2002 p 53)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

56

Dt 726 God Cultic apparatus Forbidden lsquolest you be ensnared by itrsquo on pain of

becoming חרם

Burned Abomination noun

Dt 1316-18 (MT)

God Israelites who incite others to idolatry their livestock and belongings their city

Forbidden Humans and animals put to the sword spoils and city burned

lsquoA whole burnt offeringrsquo

hiphil

Dt 2017 God People of the cities in Canaan

no Save alive nothing that breathes

Abominable hiphil

Josh 617-726 2220 1 Chr 27

God (people idols) Joshua (spoil animals city)

The city of Jericho and all that is within it people livestock spoil

Rahab and family rescued for her part in the conquest

Death of people and livestock City burned Precious metals brought into the sanctuary Achanrsquos theft of spoil results in Israel becoming

and is חרם

punished with his own death by stoning and fire

Precious metals lsquoholyrsquo

Noun Hiphil

Josh 826-27 101

God City and people of Ai Livestock and spoil excepted

King captured and judicially hanged

King hanged People killed City fired and made a heap of ruins

hiphil

Josh 1028-43

God People of Makkedah Eglon Hebron Debir whole land hill country and the Negeb

Struck the people with the edge of the sword

hiphil

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

57

Josh 1110-23

God People of Hazor Anakim

Unlawful the Hivites inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Joshua who did not consult the Lord (1119 cf 93-21)

People struck with the sword city burned Livestock and spoil plundered

hiphil

Jdg 117 God Canaanites who inhabited Zephath

hiphil

Jdg 2110 People of Israel

Males non-virgins of Jabesh-Gilead

Virgin women Struck with the edge of the sword 400 virgins taken to provide wives for Benjamin

hiphil

1 Sam 15 God People and livestock of Amalek

Agag unlawfully spared by Saul but hewn before the LORD by Samuel the best animals spared ndash their ultimate fate unclear

Struck with the edge of the sword Kingdom torn from Saul

Opposed Israel at time of Exodus

hiphil

1 Chr 441 Simeonites Hamites and Meunites

hiphil

1 Kgs 921 God Those remaining out of the Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hivites Jebusites

Unlawful redemption Enslaved because the people of Israel were not able to

perform חרם

hiphil

1 Kgs 20 God Ben-hadad of Syrians

Unlawful by Ahab

Ahabrsquos life forfeit in lieu but sentence suspended

noun

Ezr 108 Leaders of Jerusalem

Property of any returning exile who did not obey summons to Jerusalem

Property subject to

חרם

individual separated from Godrsquos people

hophal

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

58

Appendix 2 חרם as a Polysemous Term

In his undated but scholarly paper published on the internet de Prenter offers a thesis which seeks

to demonstrate that the word חרם is polysemous that is it has distinct but related meanings154 This

is in contrast to homonymy where two unrelated words share a lemma De Prenter bases his

argument upon prototype theory which states that there are different degrees of membership

within a category and that items within a category may be more or less prototypical Thus lsquorobinrsquo is

more prototypical of lsquobirdrsquo than is lsquoostrichrsquo

De Prenter picks up these ideas and Eliadersquos proposal that the sacred and the defiled are often

ambiguously intertwined as he attempts to categorise חרם citing examples in other ancient

languages where the concepts of holiness and uncleanness overlap155 He therefore argues that the

abstract core of חרם is the notion of taboo and that objects may be taboo either because they are

holy or because they are defiled

Thus the prototypical lsquoholyrsquo category of חרם has certain characteristics which its instances will

demonstrate to a greater or lesser degree These characteristics are (1) the term is used as a

synonym for (2) קדש the is prohibited and irredeemable (4) חרם is related to YHWH (3) the חרם

if anything is חרם it must be given to the priests156

In contrast the prototypical lsquodefiledrsquo category of חרם has a different set of characteristics (1) the

term is an antonym of (2) קדשwhat is חרם is accursed (3) this is associated with apostasy or חרם

idolatry (4) what is חרם must be destroyed157

The distinction between the different forms of חרם has been handled in different ways by different

scholars Hyung Dae Park comes to similar but not identical conclusions to de Prenter as he

approaches חרם more from a theological rather than a purely linguistic perspective Philip Stern

focuses his philological and historical research mostly on what von Rad calls the lsquowar heremrsquo which

would overlap both of de Prenterrsquos categories but mostly fall within the herem-to-destruction

154 de Prenter undated 155 Latin sacer means lsquodevoted to the godsrsquo and lsquodevoted to the underworldrsquo Greek ἅγιος may mean lsquoholyrsquo or

lsquoaccursedrsquo Akkadian ikkibu denotes lsquointerdictedrsquo or lsquosacredrsquo ibid p 6 156 ibid pp 7-9 157 ibid pp 9-11

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

59

Niditch acknowledges the semantic range of the term but then treats each instance of חרם on its

own merits rather than assigning it to either of de Prenterrsquos categories

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

60

Appendix 3 Holy War Moshe Weinfeld identifies eight features of Holy War as systematized by the later redactors these

include thaumaturgical elements such as stones from heaven the arresting of the heavenly bodies

and cloud which conceals Godrsquos people from their enemies158 The universal feature of Holy War is

the divine warrior motif where YHWH fights for Israel sometimes alone sometimes alongside the

human warriors159 Von Radrsquos influential book Holy War in Ancient Israel linked Holy War to the

formation of a tribal amphictyony with a particularly stylised conduct of war which consisted of (1)

mustering by means of a trumpet blast (2) consecration of the soldiers (3) sacrifices on the eve of

battle (4) a divine oracle (5) affirmation that lsquoYHWH has given into our handsrsquo (6) the enemy loses

courage and is struck by divine terror (7) ḥerem (8) dismissal160 However more modern scholarship

regards this as too neat an idealised construct owing more to von Radrsquos synthetic abilities than to

the biblical text161

The source critics tell us that the more compact and profane pericopes are early and the more

complex religious texts date from a later period Moreover different ancient sources (P or J or texts

originating from the Rachel or Leah tribes) may carry different perspectives162

However a canonical reading as set out by Brevard Childs163 allows us to transcend the source-

critical minutiae in search of the meaning of the text within the wider canon as Childs understands

the oral literary and redactional stages of shaping the text each to be forming the canon Such an

approach does not encourage us to jettison the form-critical or source-critical analyses of the text

but cautions against relying on them too fully for the understanding of the theological role of the

text There is neither an emphasis on lsquotheologyrsquo which is divorced from historical considerations nor

an over-dependence on such behind-the-text issues164

It is important to understand that the war is lsquosacredrsquo in that all of life was sacred in Israel165 It is

neither jihad nor lsquoreligious warrsquo as we now understand it The wars were never about the

propagation or enforcement of a religious system rather they were about survival or the conquest

of land166

158 The full list in provided in Kang 1989 159 de Vaux 1961 p 262 160 von Rad 1958 pp 41-51 161 Niditch 1993 p 40 See also Jones 1975 Kang 1989 162 Smend 1970 163 eg Childs 1992 164

For a similar argument from an evangelical scholar see Craigie 1978 p 97 165 Jones 1975 p 651 166 de Vaux 1961 p 258

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

61

Appendix 4 Family tree of languages referred to in the text 167

167 Derived fromHooker amp Hooker 2005 Lewis 2009 Militarev 2004

Proto-Semitic

North Semitic

Akkadian

Babylonian Assyrian

West Semitic

Proto-Levantine

Ugaritic Canaanite

Classical Hebrew

Moabite

Common Aramaic

Common Arabic

Proto-Ethiopian

South Semitic

Sumerian

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

62

Appendix 5 Philip Sternrsquos translation of Mesha Inscription168

1 I am Mesha son of Kemosh-yatti the king of Moab the

2 Dibonite My father reigned over Moab thirty years and I succeeded

3 my father I erected this high place ot Kemosh at QRHH the pla(ce

4 of sal)vation For he saved me from all kings he showed me (the defeat) of all my enemies

(especially Omri)

5 king of Israel For he oppressed Moab for many years because Kemosh was angry at his

people

6 His son took his place and he too said ldquoI will oppress Moabrdquo In my time he said s(o)

7 but I have seen (the passing of him) and his house and Israel has surely fled for eternity

Omri had taken possession of the l(an)d

8 of Mhdbrsquo adn he occupied it during his reign and (it was occupied) half the reign of his son ndash

forty years

9 but Kemosh restored it in my reign So I rebuilt Baal-meon constructed a reservoir in it and I

rebu(ilt)

10 Kiriathiam The men of Gad had dwelt in the land of Ataroth from days of yore

10-11 A king of Israel had built Ataroth for himself I attacked the city and I seized it and I

slaughtered all the peo(ple

12 of) the city ndashsatiation for Kemosh and for Moab and I dra(gg)ed back from there the chief

of the (clan of) Areli

13 And I dragged him before Kemosh at Kerioth and I settled in it men of S RN and me(n) of

14 MHRT And Kemosh said to me ldquoGo seize Nebo from Israelrdquo

15 so I went at night and I attacked it from the break of dawn until noon when

16 I seized it and I slew everybody (in it) ndash seven thousand m(e)n b(o)ys ladies gi(rl)s

17 and maidens ndash for to the warrior Kemosh I devoted them I took from there

18 the vessels of YHWH and I dragged them before Kemosh Now the king of Israel had built

19 Jahaz and he lodged there in his warring against me but Kemosh drove him out before me

20 I took from Moab 200 men (in) all its divisions (and) I led them against Jahaz and I seized it

21 to add to Dibon I rebuilt QRHH the walls of the park the walls ( ) of

22 the acropolis () I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its tower

23 and I built a palace and I built the retaining walls () of the reservoir(r at the spri)ng in the

middle of

24 the city There was no cistern in the middle of the city in QRHH so I said to all the people

ldquoMake

25 for yourselves each one a cistern in his houserdquo And I dug pits() for QRHH with

26 Israelite ( ) prisoners I rebuilt (or fortified) Aroer and I constructed the highway by the

Arnon

27 and I rebuilt Beth-bamoth because it was destroyed I rebuilt Bezer because it was in ruins ( )

28 (he) with 50 men of Dibon because every Dibonite is (my personal) vassal I ru(le)

29 (over the) hundreds of cities that I added to the land And I rebuilt

30 even Mhdbrsquo and Beth-diblathaim and Beth-baal-meon and I brought there (my

168 Stern 1991 pp 55-56

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)

63

31 shepherds to pasture) the sheep of the land And there had settled at Horonaim (

32 ) Kemosh ordered me ldquoGo down fight at Horonaimrdquo So I went down (and

33 I fought against the city and I took it and Kemosh (dwelt) in it in my time (remainder

unintelligible it ended originally at 34)