The Jewish word "cherem" (Old Testament) literally means " something removed from common use and set apart for a special purpose."

Also (from my Jewish friends): "Nine times out of ten the use of the word 'cherem' is to mean a type of spiritual excision or excommunication. There are different levels of cherem but a person in 'cherem' is not allowed to be part of the religious community" -- "excommunicated!"

In the O.T. "cherem" is specifically used in regard to the destruction of Jericho -- "set apart for a special purpose." God said: "This is mine." However, Achan stole the goods, thus he was not only excommunicated, but God instructed Joshua and the elders to put him to death. Victory then was experienced at little Ai (wheretofore, the Israelites were defeated because of "sin in the camp" -- ACHAN HAD TOUCHED THE "CHEREM").

Have you done any studies re "cherem?" What else (such as the tithe; the anointed of God, etc. is considered "cherem" in the Bible?) Please share your thoughts. Thanks. Bobbye

It sounds like Harem to me.

MORGANITE

;)

For the Jewish religfious leaders at the time of Christ, they exerted upon all who believed that Jesus was the Christ, such pressure as we can scarcely envision. They were to be "put out of the synagogue." Had the Judaic-Mosaic worshippers, who chose to reject their Messiah, simply excommunicated all who did believe in him, we would have little fault to find with their decision. Certainly a religious society is entitled to drop from membership those who depart from its beliefs and standards.

Excommunication among them, however, came successively and by degrees, until it built up to a terrible climax of hate and vengeance. Certain temporary restrictions might be imposed to begin with; these might be increased in extent and intensity; finally, the penalties included curses and anathemas, unbearable social and economic pressures, and all of the fears and torments of an eternal hell. One of the incomplete excommunications, when thrust upon a prominent person, included these restrictions: "Henceforth he would sit on the ground, and bear himself like one in deep mourning. He would allow his beard and hair to grow wild and shaggy; he would not bathe, nor anoint himself; he would not be admitted into an assembly of ten men, neither to public prayer, nor to the Academy; though he might either teach, or be taught, by single individuals. Nay, as if he were a leper, people would keep at a distance of four cubits from him. If he died, stones were cast on his coffin, nor was he allowed the honor of the ordinary funeral, nor were they to mourn for him."

This was only the beginning of what might be. "Still more terrible was the final excommunication, or Cherem [by which is meant being put out of the synagogue], when a ban of indefinite duration was laid on a man. Henceforth he was like one dead. He was not allowed to study with others, no intercourse was to be held with him, he was not even to be shown the road. He might, indeed, buy the necessaries of life, but it was forbidden to eat or drink with such an one."

There were twenty-four grounds for imposing this final type of excommunication, including resisting "the authority of the Scribes, or any of their decrees," and leading others either away from `the commandments,' or to what was regarded as profanation of the Divine Name." (Edersheim 2:184.) Those who confessed that Jesus was the Messiah would, of course, be guilty of these violations and this herem, or ban, was the fear of the parents of the man born blind..

To be put out of the synagogue was more than excommunication; it was persecution, which led Jesus to say to the disciples: "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." (John 16:2.) The dreadful burden of such a penalty was more than these parents -- already so poor that their son, the man born blind, begged for a living -- dared to assume.

One other instance is found in the condemnation of Jesus. In the Jewish trials of Jesus. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin had "condemned him to be guilty of death." (Mark 14:64.) But -- "The law and the practice of the time required that any person found guilty of a capital offense, after due trial before a Jewish tribunal, should be given a second trial on the following day; and at this later hearing any or all of the judges who had before voted for conviction could reverse themselves; but no one who had once voted for acquittal could change his ballot. A bare majority was sufficient for acquittal, but more than a majority [two more, in fact] was required for conviction. By a provision that must appear to us most unusual, if all the judges voted for conviction on a capital charge the verdict was not to stand and the accused had to be set at liberty; it was argued, a unanimous vote against a prisoner indicated that he had had no friend or defender in court, and that the judges might have been in conspiracy against Him. Under this rule in Hebrew jurisprudence the verdict against Jesus, rendered at the illegal night session of the Sanhedrists, was void, for we are specifically told that 'they all condemned him to be guilty of death.'

Apparently for the purpose of establishing a shadowy pretext of legality in their procedure, the Sanhedrists adjourned to meet again in early daylight. Thus they technically complied with the requirement -- that on every case in which the death sentence had been decreed the court should hear and judge a second time in a later session -- but they completely ignored the equally mandatory provision that the second trial must be conducted on the day following that of the first hearing. Between the two sittings on consecutive days the judges were required to fast and pray, and to give the case on trial calm and earnest consideration.

And so the continued happenings of that doleful night were these: "At last the miserable lingering hours were over" -- the hours before Annas and Caiaphas, during which he was derided, mocked, slapped, cursed, and showered with spittle -- "and the grey dawn shuddered, and the morning blushed upon that memorable day. And with the earliest dawn, The Sanhedrin had been summoned, for His third actual, but His first formal and legal trial. It was now probably about six o'clock in the morning, and a full session met. Well-nigh all -- for there were the noble exceptions at least of Nicodemus and of Joseph of Arimathea, and we may hope also of Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel -- were inexorably bent upon His death. The Priests were there, whose greed and selfishness He had been reproved; the Elders, whose hypocrisy He had branded; the Scribes, whose ignorance He had exposed; the worse than all, the worldly, skeptical, would-be philosophic Sadducees, always the most cruel and dangerous of opponents, whose empty sapience He had so grievously confuted. All these were bent upon His death; all filled with repulsion at that infinite goodness; all burning with hatred against a purer nature than any which they could even conceive in their loftiest dreams. And yet their task in trying to achieve his destruction was not easy.. . The fact was that the Sanhedrists had not the power of inflicting death, and even if the Pharisees might have ventured to usurp it in a tumultuary sedition, as they afterwards did in the case of Stephen, the less fanatic and more cosmopolitan Sadducees would be less likely to do so.

"Not content, therefore, with the cherem, or ban of greater excommunication, their only way to compass His death was to hand Him over to the secular arm. At present they had only against Him a charge of constructive blasphemy, founded on an admission forced from Him by the High Priest, when even their own suborned witnesses had failed to perjure themselves to their satisfaction. There were many old accusations against Him, on which they could not rely. His Violations of the Sabbath, as they called them, were all connected with miracles, and brought them, therefore, upon dangerous ground. His rejection of oral tradition involved a question on which Sadducees and Pharisees were at a deadly feud. His authoritative cleansing of the Temple might be regarded with favour both by the Rabbis and the people. The charge of esoteric evil doctrine had been refuted by the utter publicity of His life. The charge of open heresies had broken down, from the total absence of supporting testimony. The problem before them was to convert the ecclesiastical charge of constructive blasphemy into a civil charge of constructive treason. But how could this be done? Not half the members of the Sanhedrin had been present at the hurried, nocturnal, and therefore illegal, session in the house of Caiaphas; yet if they were all to condemn him by a formal sentence, they must all hear something on which to found their vote. In answer to the adjuration of Caiaphas, He had solemnly admitted that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. The latter declaration would have been meaningless as a charge against Him before the tribunal of the Romans; but if He could repeat the former, they might twist it into something politically seditious. But He would not repeat it, in spite of their insistence, because He knew that it was open to their wilful misinterpretation, and because they were evidently acting in flagrant violation of their own express rules and traditions, which demanded that every arraigned criminal should be regarded and treated as innocent until his guilt was actually proved." (Dean Farrar, The Life of Christ, pp. 654-56.)

An interesting story about cherem and the Baal Shem Tov (Keeper of the name of Gof) is found at: http://www.cousinsconnection.com/Stories/cherem.htm


MORGANITE

:cool:

Excellent information. Thanks for sharing. Outstanding! Bobbye

I owe most of it to Farrar and Edersheim, two of myheroes.

:)

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:48 PM.

It isn't, it is 12 37.

How can I tell them?

"Edersheim" is also one of my favorites! Can't go wrong with his commentary.
Bobbye

I wiould not go so far as to say, "You can't go wrong." You can go wrong with anyone's commentary no matter how erudite they are. We are learning all the time and Biblical scholarship is a living, vibrant thing that is reaching some very exciting phases.

However, I do agree that Edersheim outshines all commentators who have written on the life of Christ, with the possible exception of Farrar who, wile he may not exceed him, is certainly on a par with him. The Mormon, Talmage, also produced a remarkable book, Jesus the Christ, in which he leans heavily on both these divines.

:)