On the Concept of Herem

Some scattered thoughts about the meaning of herem in the Bible

I’ve been in an ongoing conversation with a good friend about the conquest narrative in the Bible and the question of genocide in the Bible. Recently we talked about Christian Hofreiter's Making Sense of Old Testament Genocide: Christian Interpretations of Herem Passages. My friend read the whole thing, and I only read the final summary chapter, so this isn’t going to be a review of Hofreiter’s book. Nor is it going to try to solve all of the questions surrounding the conquests narrative, contemporary geopolitics, or anything else that ambitious. Instead, our conversation got me looking at the herem passages because in a footnote on page 3 Hofreiter distinguishes between the consecratory, judicial, and “war” herem passages.¹ That distinction didn’t sit right with me, so I wanted to take a look at the herem passages to see if there was a sense in which each of those distinct uses had something in common.

While the first occurrence of herem (in the canonical order) is Exodus 22:19 (those who offer sacrifices to other gods are herem), the most important for understanding the concept is Leviticus 27:26-29:

26 No one, however, may dedicate (yaqdiš) the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the Lord; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the Lord’s. 27 If it is one of the unclean animals, it may be bought back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If it is not redeemed, it is to be sold at its set value. 28 But nothing that a person owns and devotes (herem) to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted (herem) is most holy to the Lord. 29 No person devoted to destruction (herem) may be ransomed; they are to be put to death.

The context of Leviticus 27 is setting the valuation for things dedicated (yaqdiš > qdš, “holy”) to God by a vow. So someone makes a vow to God, takes the thing to the temple and gives it to the priests who then give a payment to the vow-maker in return. The chapter lists examples of the valuation for things vowed (e.g., people, animals, land), but then we come to the things that can’t be dedicated. Firstborns cannot be dedicated to God because they already belong to God (see Exodus 13). This is followed by a surprising repetition (or close to it) of 27:11-13 (unclean animals vowed to God but unusable as an offering to God),² but I think it’s intended to modify the prohibition of the firstborn animals. In other words, if it is an unclean firstborn animal, it may be redeemed or sold.

Then we come to our herem passage. Things that are herem-ed can’t be dedicated to God as a vow. Why? Because herem-ed things are most holy (qodeš qadašim) and can’t be sold or redeemed. Is it that they can’t be sold or redeemed because they are most holy or because they are herem-ed? I’m not sure, but I lean towards the former. If v26 can inform what is happening here in 28, then the status of the thing under question seems to be the grounds for the instructions. Firstborns are already dedicated to the Lord, so you can’t double-dedicate. You can’t give to God what is already his. Herem-ed things have the status of “most holy” so they can’t be sold or redeemed. It doesn’t specify that they can’t be dedicated to God, but the placement of this instruction here in the context of chapter 27 seems to imply that that is the case since it is all about the redemption price of things dedicated to God in a vow, a herem-ed thing, which can’t be redeemed, can’t be dedicated to God in a vow. Instead, herem-ed things must be put to death.³

What other things are “most holy”? Here’s a small, but not exhaustive, list:

• the tabernacle altar,

• the tabernacle incense,

• grain offerings,

• sin offerings,

• guilt offerings.

How in the world are all of these things and herem-ed things related?! I'm not sure. A few other things of note:

1. I don't know if there is a distinction between things that are herem-ed and things that are herem-ed by or with the sword (there are 50 occurrences of herem; 14 have sword nearby). If there is a distinction, might a thing count as herem-ed even if it is not put to death? A city is herem-ed, but does that mean that the entire city needs to be destroyed or that if all the inhabitants leave, it has been successfully herem-ed?

2. In Ezra 10:8 a man’s property may be herem-ed and translators usually express this with the idea of forfeit or confiscated.

3. Jeremiah 25:9 has God saying he will bring Babylon against Judah and will herem them, but clearly not every person under the herem is completely destroyed because some are taken to Babylon and in Jeremiah 50:21, 26, God says he will turn around and herem Babylon.

4. The Canaanite herem came about only when their sins had been “filled up” (e.g. Genesis 15:16), which implies that a threshold had been crossed. In that sense, it reminds me of the Flood narrative and the scattering at Babel. The word herem is not used in either Genesis 6-8 or Genesis 11, but I'm not a bibl(og)ical positivist, I don't need the precise word to find parallels. If these are meant to be seen in parallel, we have three narratives telling the same kind of story: sin builds up, and the causes of sin are herem-ed, cleansing the land. I think Babel narrative is suggestive that the scattering stops the sin from getting worse (at least preventing a repeat of Genesis 6) and I wonder if one might also read the herem of Canaan in the same way (just as Israel’s sins “filled up” and they were herem-ed and scattered to cleanse the land). That is, a line had been crossed and before things got to Genesis 6-levels, the inhabitants of the land were herem-ed.

5. If (4) is true, and books like Hebrews parallels the Exodus narrative with the Christian narrative in which the Christian journey is headed towards the true promised land (Heaven), then between now and the eschaton, Christians do not engage in herem. But would that then make the final judgment a kind of herem of the whole earth before it is made new?

In a footnote on page 11, Hofreiter lists some LXX equivalents to herem,⁴ which include (but are not limited to) some words that stood out: ἀνάθεμα (anathema), ἀναθεματίζω (anathematizō), ἀνάθημα (anathēma). A quick Logos search of the lemma brings up some interesting results:

• Mark 14:71 - But he began to invoke a curse (ἀναθεματίζειν) on himself and to swear, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”

• Luke 21:5 - And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings (ἀναθήμασιν ), he said…

• Acts 23:12 - When it was day, the Jews made a plot and bound themselves by an oath (ἀνεθεμάτισαν) neither to eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.

• Acts 23:14 - They went to the chief priests and elders and said, “We have strictly bound ourselves by an oath (Ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν) to taste no food till we have killed Paul.

• Acts 23:21 - But do not be persuaded by them, for more than forty of their men are lying in ambush for him, who have bound themselves by an oath (ἀνεθεμάτισαν) neither to eat nor drink till they have killed him. And now they are ready, waiting for your consent.

• Romans 9:3 - For I could wish that I myself were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

• 1 Corinthians 12:3 - Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed (Ἀνάθεμα)!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.

• 1 Corinthians 16:22 - If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). Our Lord, come!

• Galatians 1:8-9 - But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα).

What is the relationship between anathema and curse? In my mind they were related. Take Deuteronomy 27:26, for example:

Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

I usually would take that as “damned.” Right? If you don’t do the law, then you aren’t “saved.” The LXX uses καταράομαι (noun form: κατάρα) to translate the Hebrew אַרַר (cursed) and that appears 5 times (noun, 6 times) in the NT. Matthew 25:41 would seem to imply damnation:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

But, Galatians 3:13:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—

And we already saw that herem-ed things can’t be redeemed, so what is cursed is different from what is herem-ed. A curse seems to be a kind of punishment that is the opposite of blessing, but it is not “unfixable” (redemption is possible), but herem is not.

I never thought much about what anathema means, but I think I’m starting to get the force of the word, especially if I am right in seeing the final judgment as a form of herem. Let so-and-so be herem-ed at the final judgment and so destroyed. There is no hope for redemption (sorry, my universalist friends), because herem-ed things cannot be redeemed.⁵

1. “Texts were selected as being important on the basis of a combination of internal and external criteria, especially the use of חרם in the HB and their prima facie correspondence to the UN’s definition of genocide. Consequently, uses of herem other than in the context of war, such as in the semantic domains of consecration (Lev 27:21.28f; Num 18:14) and of the judicial punishment for violating the first commandment (Exod 22:19) are not investigated in this book. In what follows, herem will thus be used exclusively to refer to ‘war herem’, unless otherwise specified” (p. 3).

2. “And if it is any unclean animal that may not be offered as an offering to the LORD, then he shall stand the animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it as either good or bad; as the priest values it, so it shall be. But if he wishes to redeem it, he shall add a fifth to the valuation.”

3. Insterestingly, in Exodus 13 when God tells Israel to dedicate the firstborn to him, he says, “11 After the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your ancestors, 12 you are to give over to the Lord the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the Lord. 13 Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons. 14 In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 15 When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’ 16 And it will be like a sign on your hand and a symbol on your forehead that the Lord brought us out of Egypt with his mighty hand.”

4. Which, to give due credit, he takes from H. D. Park, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke–Acts in the Light of Herem (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 54-55.

5. It also makes me more annoyed that Nicaea II anathematized anyone who doesn’t venerate icons, and attempts to soften that seem disingenuous.