mathêteuô means to be a pupil – a taught one, or a learner – and primarily denotes one who directs his mind towards something. So it is said in Matthew 28:19, that true Christians are to make pupils out of those who believe, and wish to learn. You will note that the verse does not speak of pisteuô, or a “believer”.
Sheep who are located are to be made disciples (Matthew 28:19) - they are the ones to be located, and locating them is done through the good news, and they respond all on their own - because he calls them by name (John 10:3-6).
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Send Us A Confusing Consensus
"This is a confusing incident all the way around ... The only way the story would make sense is if the Lord didn't order the census". ~ Plotz.
And that it is possible that Jehovah did not order the census is, well, quite possible, maybe even probable.
Plotz starts off with, "The Lord orders David to take a census." But did Jehovah order David? In 2 Samuel 24:1, it reads (NSRV) "Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'"
Okay. But who exactly is "he"? It might first help to know that in the original language, a separate Hebrew word for "he" which necessarily relates to the object "Jehovah" does not exist in this verse, nor does it exist at all.
The "he" which we read from an English translation comes from the within the form of the word "cuwth" [sooth/sut] or סֶת by virtue of the masculine form preceded by the conjunction וַ - the entire verse reads as follows: א וַיֹּסֶף, אַף-יְהוָה, לַחֲרוֹת, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וַָיּסֶת אֶת-דָּוִדבָּהֶם לֵאמֹר, לֵךְ מְנֵה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת-יְהוּדָה.Or literally, "and inciting", masculine, in English becomes "and he is inciting" (very simplified explanation mind you).
The English syntax suggests in our English thinking mind that the "he" must be associated with the preceding object, "Jehovah", for that is the most common comprehension under English syntax. But this is not necessarily always to be the case in Hebrew. Equally, the use of "one" can also be supported (I.e., "when one incited" or even "when one went inciting"). So who is "he" then, or who is this "one"? It is not necessarily specified in 2 Samuel 24. The meaning of "cuwth" includes "deceit", but unlike "pata" (which can also mean deceive), there is the firm underlying root of cunningness and cause to entice or incite. Most commonly this verb has dysfunctional (or evil if you will) connotations as contextually represented in 2 Kings 18:32, Jer 43:3, 1 Kings 21:25, 2 Chr 18:2, Deut 13:6 Jer 38:22, and so on). The one who did the inciting is not identified. Was it some human counselor? Was it Satan? Or even Jehovah (God)?
1 Chronicles 21:1 helps to answer the question, saying "Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel" (a rendering supported by the Hebrew text, and with translations into Greek, Syriac, and Latin as well – and is consistent with other English renderings in the AT, NE, RS, JB, and Mo). However, the rendering is not "ha'satan", but rather simply "satan" in 1 Chronicles 21 – and the Hebrew word satan can also be rendered "a resister", or even "a satan", or as Young's literal applies "an adversary" (lacking the definite article ha' most likely places the use of satan into the indefinite "class of"). So then the inciter was perhaps an adversary, "the" adversary himself even, or perhaps a human resistor.
As the writings of the Chronicles are traditionally assigned to Erza, and are believed to have been prepared following the return from exile to Babylon, many scholars (Adele Berlin for one, and Marc Brettler for another) have speculated that "satan" was a replacement by the author for Yhwh rendered in 2 Samuel 24:1.
And that possibility is certainly available within the boundaries of speculation, but equally as non-conclusive as anything offered so far (i.e., we may never know one way or the other). What we do know, however, is that Erza identifies many sources from which he drew upon in preparing the Chronicles – some are still with us, some which are mentioned we no longer have – but he does mention use of the "word of Samuel the seer and of Nathan the prophet and of Gad the visionary (1 Chr 29:29 – which may be one work, two, or three separate, or it may refer to Judges and the books of Samuel). He identifies some 20 plus sources relied upon in preparing his text – and from that stand-point, he (or whoever you wish to assign authorship to) – was much closer to the source than we obviously are today. The point being; confirming text were available not only to Samuel, but others as well. In my personal opinion, whether Erza was performing what he perceived to be politically-correct maintenance or whether he was rendering what was already understood from the books of Samuel, and possible documented in others now not available to us – is something we will never be able to firmly conclude based on any objective evidence present today.
One should, however, not summarily discount the possibility of the later; as already mentioned - many works existed at the time of the penning of Chronicles, including most probably the rendering in 2 Samuel 24.1. It cannot be ignored that a prudent "editor" wishing to mend politically incorrect views, would also likely have "edited" 2 Samuel 24.1 as well and for the same reasons – yet they did not. In my subjective opinion, this weakens the former position, and favors the latter. Though we find it quite true that many commentators and scholars consider that the "one" or "he" who incited David to take the census was Jehovah. According to this view, his "anger against Israel" predated the census and was due to their recent rebellions against Jehovah and his appointed king, David, when they followed first ambitious Absalom and then the "good-for-nothing Sheba, the son of Bichri, in opposition to David (2 Sa 15:10-12; and 20:1-2).
Such a view could be harmonized with the view that Satan, satan, or some bad human counselor incited David if the incitement is viewed as something Jehovah purposely allowed, as by removing his protection or restraining hand (compare 1 Kings 22:21-23; 1 Samuel 16:14). On David's part, there may have been wrong motive due to pride and trust in the numbers of his army, hence a failing to manifest full reliance oh Jehovah. In any case, it seems quite clear that on this occasion David's primary concern was not that of glorifying god - and that in and of itself would constitute k'hate.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Doing Away With Death
How did mankind come to need a resurrection? In the beginning a resurrection was not necessary. It was not a part of God's original purpose for mankind, because death was not the natural, purposed thing for humans. Rather, God indicated that he purposed the earth to be full of living humans, Not a deteriorating, dying race.
His work was perfect, without flaw, imperfection, or sickness. (De 32:4) Jehovah blessed the first human pair, telling them to multiply and fill the earth. (Ge 1:28) Such blessing certainly DID NOT include sickness and death; God set NO limited life span for man, but he told Adam that disobedience is what would cause death.
This implies that man would otherwise live forever. Disobedience would incur God's disfavor and remove his blessing, bringing a curse.—Ge 2:17; 3:17-19
Death was introduced into the human race by the transgression of Adam. (Ro 5:12) Because of their father's sinfulness and resultant imperfection, Adam's offspring could NOT get a heritage of everlasting life from him; in fact, not even a hope of living forever. "Neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit," said Jesus. (Mt 7:17, 18; Job 14:1, 2)
The resurrection was brought in, or added, to overcome this disability for those of Adam's children who would desire to be obedient to God.
The resurrection shows forth not only Jehovah's unlimited power and wisdom but also his love and his mercy and vindicates him as the Preserver of those who serve him. (1Sa 2:6)
Having resurrection power, he can go to the extent of showing that his servants will be faithful to him to the very death. He can answer Satan's accusation that asserted that "skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul." (Job 2:4) Jehovah can let Satan go the full limit, even to killing some in a vain effort to support his false accusations. (Mt 24:9; Re 2:10; 6:11)
The fact that Jehovah's servants are willing to give up life itself in his service proves their service is, not for selfish considerations, but out of love. (Re 12:11) It also proves that they acknowledge Him as the Almighty, the Universal Sovereign, and the God of love, who is able to resurrect them.
It proves they render exclusive devotion to Jehovah for his wonderful qualities and not for selfish material reasons. The resurrection also is a means by which Jehovah sees that his purpose toward the earth, as stated to Adam, is carried out.—Ge 1:28.
The resurrection of the dead is an undeserved kindness on God's part and essential to mankind's happiness and to the undoing of all the harm, suffering, and oppression that have come upon the human race.
These things have befallen man as a result of his imperfection and sickness, the wars he has waged, the murders committed, and the inhumanities practiced by wicked people at the instance of Satan the Devil. We cannot be completely happy if we do not believe in a resurrection.
Immortality differs from everlasting life. The first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle's words at Romans 6:9: "Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more." (Compare Re 1:17, 18.)
For this reason, when describing him as "the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords," 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that HE is "the one alone having immortality." The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel.
The glorified Jesus, God's appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has "an indestructible life."—Heb 7:15-17, 23-25.
The word "indestructible" here translates the Greek term a·ka·ta´ly·tos, meaning, literally, "indissoluble." (Heb 7:16) The word is a compound of the negative prefix a joined to other words relating to a "loosening down," as in Jesus' statement regarding the loosening down or throwing down of the stones of the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, 2), as well as in Paul's reference to the loosening down of the earthly "tent" of Christians, that is, the dissolving of their earthly life in human bodies. (2Co 5:1)
Thus, the immortal life granted Jesus upon his resurrection is not merely endless but is beyond deterioration or dissolution and is beyond destruction.
Those anointed Christians [144,000] have been called to reign with Christ in the heavens (1Pe 1:3, 4), have the promise to share with Christ in the likeness of his resurrection. (Ro 6:5) As in the case of their Lord and Head, the anointed members of the Christian congregation who die faithful receive a resurrection to immortal SPIRIT life, so that "this which is mortal puts on immortality." (1Co 15:50-54)
As with Jesus, immortality in their case DOES NOT mean simply everlasting life, or mere freedom from death. It meanst hat they, along with their Lord and Head, are granted "the power of an indestructible life" as fellow heirs with Christ is seen from the apostle Paul's association of incorruptibility with the immortality they attain. (1Co 15:42-49) Over them "the second death has no authority."—Re 20:6; .
This grant of immortality to the Kingdom heirs is all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that even God's angels are shown to be mortal, despite their possessing spirit bodies, not carnal ones.
Angelic mortality is evident in view of the judgment of death entered against the spirit son who became God's Adversary, or Satan, and also against those other angels who followed that satanic course and "did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place." (Jude 6; Mt 25:41; Re 20:10, 14)
So the grant of "indestructible life" (Heb 7:16) or "indissoluble life" to those Christians who gain the privilege of reigning with God's Son in the heavenly Kingdom marvelously demonstrates God's confidence in them. The new bodies given these anointed ones are spirit bodies.
His work was perfect, without flaw, imperfection, or sickness. (De 32:4) Jehovah blessed the first human pair, telling them to multiply and fill the earth. (Ge 1:28) Such blessing certainly DID NOT include sickness and death; God set NO limited life span for man, but he told Adam that disobedience is what would cause death.
This implies that man would otherwise live forever. Disobedience would incur God's disfavor and remove his blessing, bringing a curse.—Ge 2:17; 3:17-19
Death was introduced into the human race by the transgression of Adam. (Ro 5:12) Because of their father's sinfulness and resultant imperfection, Adam's offspring could NOT get a heritage of everlasting life from him; in fact, not even a hope of living forever. "Neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit," said Jesus. (Mt 7:17, 18; Job 14:1, 2)
The resurrection was brought in, or added, to overcome this disability for those of Adam's children who would desire to be obedient to God.
The resurrection shows forth not only Jehovah's unlimited power and wisdom but also his love and his mercy and vindicates him as the Preserver of those who serve him. (1Sa 2:6)
Having resurrection power, he can go to the extent of showing that his servants will be faithful to him to the very death. He can answer Satan's accusation that asserted that "skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul." (Job 2:4) Jehovah can let Satan go the full limit, even to killing some in a vain effort to support his false accusations. (Mt 24:9; Re 2:10; 6:11)
The fact that Jehovah's servants are willing to give up life itself in his service proves their service is, not for selfish considerations, but out of love. (Re 12:11) It also proves that they acknowledge Him as the Almighty, the Universal Sovereign, and the God of love, who is able to resurrect them.
It proves they render exclusive devotion to Jehovah for his wonderful qualities and not for selfish material reasons. The resurrection also is a means by which Jehovah sees that his purpose toward the earth, as stated to Adam, is carried out.—Ge 1:28.
The resurrection of the dead is an undeserved kindness on God's part and essential to mankind's happiness and to the undoing of all the harm, suffering, and oppression that have come upon the human race.
These things have befallen man as a result of his imperfection and sickness, the wars he has waged, the murders committed, and the inhumanities practiced by wicked people at the instance of Satan the Devil. We cannot be completely happy if we do not believe in a resurrection.
Immortality differs from everlasting life. The first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle's words at Romans 6:9: "Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more." (Compare Re 1:17, 18.)
For this reason, when describing him as "the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords," 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that HE is "the one alone having immortality." The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel.
The glorified Jesus, God's appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has "an indestructible life."—Heb 7:15-17, 23-25.
The word "indestructible" here translates the Greek term a·ka·ta´ly·tos, meaning, literally, "indissoluble." (Heb 7:16) The word is a compound of the negative prefix a joined to other words relating to a "loosening down," as in Jesus' statement regarding the loosening down or throwing down of the stones of the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, 2), as well as in Paul's reference to the loosening down of the earthly "tent" of Christians, that is, the dissolving of their earthly life in human bodies. (2Co 5:1)
Thus, the immortal life granted Jesus upon his resurrection is not merely endless but is beyond deterioration or dissolution and is beyond destruction.
Those anointed Christians [144,000] have been called to reign with Christ in the heavens (1Pe 1:3, 4), have the promise to share with Christ in the likeness of his resurrection. (Ro 6:5) As in the case of their Lord and Head, the anointed members of the Christian congregation who die faithful receive a resurrection to immortal SPIRIT life, so that "this which is mortal puts on immortality." (1Co 15:50-54)
As with Jesus, immortality in their case DOES NOT mean simply everlasting life, or mere freedom from death. It meanst hat they, along with their Lord and Head, are granted "the power of an indestructible life" as fellow heirs with Christ is seen from the apostle Paul's association of incorruptibility with the immortality they attain. (1Co 15:42-49) Over them "the second death has no authority."—Re 20:6; .
This grant of immortality to the Kingdom heirs is all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that even God's angels are shown to be mortal, despite their possessing spirit bodies, not carnal ones.
Angelic mortality is evident in view of the judgment of death entered against the spirit son who became God's Adversary, or Satan, and also against those other angels who followed that satanic course and "did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place." (Jude 6; Mt 25:41; Re 20:10, 14)
So the grant of "indestructible life" (Heb 7:16) or "indissoluble life" to those Christians who gain the privilege of reigning with God's Son in the heavenly Kingdom marvelously demonstrates God's confidence in them. The new bodies given these anointed ones are spirit bodies.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Anarchy or Monarchy - Monarchy or Anarchy
”Really, can you blame them for wanting a monarch? We just finished a book, Judges, which is all about what happens when there is no leader—mass murder, gang rape, anarchy, and so forth.” ~ David Plotz
That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah’s disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.
The books of Judges was not all about what “happens when there is no leader” – indeed, it is all about what “what happens when one rejects the leader” – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).
But even more so, rather than deal extensively with Israel’s unfaithfulness and the resultant foreign oppression, the book primarily relates the exploits of the judges and the deliverances Jehovah performed by means of them – thus identifying not only his saving ability, and his long-suffering (even for those who directly reject his sovereign-ship), mercy, undeserved kindness, and justice are quite highlighted.
It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why “appoint for us a King” when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).
“for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you.”
There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24).
Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne’phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one’s “lev” - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Departure from Base Text - Judges 7 verse 5-6
In Judges 7, verse 5, the NRSV renders, "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.'
A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).
It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also"). The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".
Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"
In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah."
It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text. The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text. Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Mowqesh - A Snare
Ezekiel 2:6-7 reads, “And you, O son of man, do not be afraid of them; and of their words do not be afraid, because there are obstinate ones and things pricking you and it is among scorpions that you are dwelling. Of their words do not you be afraid, and at their faces do not you be struck with terror, for they are a rebellious house. 7 And you must speak my words to them, regardless of whether they hear or they refrain, for they are a case of rebellion”.
In his commission, just before being instructed to eat the scroll offered him, Ezekiel is told not to be afraid of their words, not to be in terror of their faces. Jeremiah is told similarly in Jeremiah 1:8, and again at 17, and even earlier, Joshua is instructed likewise, “Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not suffer shock or be terrified, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go.” – which are words once spoken by Moses to Joshua before the eyes of all Israel – and so it became a promise made from Jehovah. Elijah is instructed in the same manner at 2 Kings 1:15.
The reason for this warning (not to be terrified) was interesting -
In Proverbs 29:25 we are told that “Trembling at men [‘a-dham] is what lays a snare, but he that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected.” Similarly, Jesus also echoes a similar message to his disciples in Luke 12:4 (as well as Matthew 10:28), “Moreover, I say to you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body and after this are able to do nothing more – but I will indicate to you whom to fear: fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Gehenna”.
Trembling at men is what lays a snare – as Peter experienced first hand in Matthew 26:75.
In Proverbs 29:25, the word translated as “snare” is mowqesh – meaning a noose, primarily for catching animals, and by implication, a hook, a trap. The root word here being yaqosh. Yaqosh, and its various derivatives, occur forty times in the Hebrew Scriptures – and refers to a set trap which catches prey – and more frequently, it is used metaphorical sense of entrapping people. A snare is something that that allures one from his real purpose and then destroys him. In such a light, Saul to ruin David gave his daughter Michal to him in marriage so that she might become a snare to David (i.e., something to deter David from his real purpose). In mowqesh, though, it is the “mem” which prefixes, indicating the confusion and sense of entrapment or panic an animal (or man) immediately senses when they realize what has happened to them – though such a realization comes as a result of already being trapped – it is a sense then of known dread – knowing you are done for.
Because of its inescapable hold, the power of death is often referred to as the “snares of death” – often brought on by trembling at men. In Psalms 18:4-5 David acknowledges this lesson when he speaks on the day that Jehovah delivered him from the snare set by Saul - “The ropes of death encircled me; flash-floods of good-for-nothing men also kept terrifying me. The very ropes of sheol surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me.”
Jehovah warns Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Joshua, Elijah, as Jesus warns his disciples, that trembling or being afraid of men – thus succumbing to the spirit of men over the course directed to you by Jehovah, is a snare which will entrap you – and its hold you may not be able to break – and it may even serve as death or destruction for you.
There are other snares warned of – wickedness is identified as a snare (Proverbs 29:6), vowing rashly (Proverbs 20:25), and being friends with a man given to anger (Proverbs 22:24), idolatrous worship as well is called a snare.
Therefore, the Scriptures instruct that the righteous turn to God in prayer to be kept from being thus snared (Psalms 141:9 – “Keep me from the clutches of the trap that they have laid for me, and from the snares (mowqesh]of those practicing what is hurtful.”
Those who have followed idolatry become ensnared and can no longer serve Jehovah (Exodus 23:33). Jehovah, on the other hand, also prepares snares for his opponents (Jer 50:24) – in that they become so self-sufficient in their opposition to him that they are unaware of the snare – becoming entrapped by their own sin (Proverbs 29:6) – placing one at the hand of God to seal the trap and judge the victim (Psalm 9:16).
Mem m (Mah) – water
Vav (Waw) – tent peg
Quph – horizon
Sin – thorn
Mem [Mah] – water – the ancient Hebrew drew a symbol for water (horizontal wavy line, similar to how youngsters still indicate waves of water] – representing the meaning of liquid, water and sea, mighty and massive from the size of the sea, and chaos from the storms so common in the open sea. To the Hebrew, the sea was a feared and unknown place, and for this reason, this letter is used commonly as a question word – who, what, when, why, and how – in the sense of searching for the unknown – clarification for when one is floundering in a chaotic situation, being tossed about, unsure of a direction, without sure course.
Waw [vav] – tent peg – the ancient symbol here being a symbol for the “Y” peg or hook commonly used in construction of a Semitic tent; meaning to add or secure, fastened.
Quph – horizon – a symbol of the sun, setting or rising across the horizon; carrying the meaning of revolution, circle – often being “condensed” or collected, even separated, as light gathers at the horizons as the sun rises or falls, and when the light becomes separated from the darkness at the horizon just before dawn, or just before dusk.
Shin – the two front teeth – meaning teeth, sharp, press (from the function of teeth when chewing, eating) – a sustaining function – one is what they eat.
fqwooom (left to right mem, waw, quph, shin) combined, mowqesh reflects one who has become gathered in, collected, separated, and then secured or fastened, and to left to feed – but not on the food provided by God, but on calamity, confusion, being tossed about in uncertainty – a situation which ultimately results in one’s death or final destruction. The word is very similar to qadash but quite telling is the absence of the tent of Jehovah, d – and added is the chaotic sense of mem m
In contrast, there is “holy”, qadash) a collecting, gathering, and separating (quph), to dwell in the tent of God (dal), to be sustained by the food God offers (shin)
In the instruction then given to Ezekiel, Jehovah is telling him not to tremble at the faces or the words of those he is about to enter with – for in so doing, he would become snared and trapped (Proverbs 29:25) – just as they were – and instead of performing the will of God, he would be separating himself from God, to end up in fact being secured and fastened to those feeding on confusion – lost – from the very path of God which leads to life. And so he must not tremble or fear man, but rather, as Jesus says, keep your fear and trembling on Jehovah.
The words and the faces of those who bring confrontation against the word of God, should be dealt with, but not dwelt upon, for their very purpose may simply be a snare, a diversion which leads one away from their God established purpose - a purpose for a Christian which is to declare the good news of the Kingdom of God, and not to become ensnared in small battles with those who would serve only as distracter from this commission. If one continues to argue and become entangled in the snare of linguistic detail, one cannot simultaneously be expending full effort on declaring the good news.
In his commission, just before being instructed to eat the scroll offered him, Ezekiel is told not to be afraid of their words, not to be in terror of their faces. Jeremiah is told similarly in Jeremiah 1:8, and again at 17, and even earlier, Joshua is instructed likewise, “Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not suffer shock or be terrified, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go.” – which are words once spoken by Moses to Joshua before the eyes of all Israel – and so it became a promise made from Jehovah. Elijah is instructed in the same manner at 2 Kings 1:15.
The reason for this warning (not to be terrified) was interesting -
In Proverbs 29:25 we are told that “Trembling at men [‘a-dham] is what lays a snare, but he that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected.” Similarly, Jesus also echoes a similar message to his disciples in Luke 12:4 (as well as Matthew 10:28), “Moreover, I say to you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body and after this are able to do nothing more – but I will indicate to you whom to fear: fear him who after killing has authority to throw into Gehenna”.
Trembling at men is what lays a snare – as Peter experienced first hand in Matthew 26:75.
In Proverbs 29:25, the word translated as “snare” is mowqesh – meaning a noose, primarily for catching animals, and by implication, a hook, a trap. The root word here being yaqosh. Yaqosh, and its various derivatives, occur forty times in the Hebrew Scriptures – and refers to a set trap which catches prey – and more frequently, it is used metaphorical sense of entrapping people. A snare is something that that allures one from his real purpose and then destroys him. In such a light, Saul to ruin David gave his daughter Michal to him in marriage so that she might become a snare to David (i.e., something to deter David from his real purpose). In mowqesh, though, it is the “mem” which prefixes, indicating the confusion and sense of entrapment or panic an animal (or man) immediately senses when they realize what has happened to them – though such a realization comes as a result of already being trapped – it is a sense then of known dread – knowing you are done for.
Because of its inescapable hold, the power of death is often referred to as the “snares of death” – often brought on by trembling at men. In Psalms 18:4-5 David acknowledges this lesson when he speaks on the day that Jehovah delivered him from the snare set by Saul - “The ropes of death encircled me; flash-floods of good-for-nothing men also kept terrifying me. The very ropes of sheol surrounded me; the snares of death confronted me.”
Jehovah warns Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Joshua, Elijah, as Jesus warns his disciples, that trembling or being afraid of men – thus succumbing to the spirit of men over the course directed to you by Jehovah, is a snare which will entrap you – and its hold you may not be able to break – and it may even serve as death or destruction for you.
There are other snares warned of – wickedness is identified as a snare (Proverbs 29:6), vowing rashly (Proverbs 20:25), and being friends with a man given to anger (Proverbs 22:24), idolatrous worship as well is called a snare.
Therefore, the Scriptures instruct that the righteous turn to God in prayer to be kept from being thus snared (Psalms 141:9 – “Keep me from the clutches of the trap that they have laid for me, and from the snares (mowqesh]of those practicing what is hurtful.”
Those who have followed idolatry become ensnared and can no longer serve Jehovah (Exodus 23:33). Jehovah, on the other hand, also prepares snares for his opponents (Jer 50:24) – in that they become so self-sufficient in their opposition to him that they are unaware of the snare – becoming entrapped by their own sin (Proverbs 29:6) – placing one at the hand of God to seal the trap and judge the victim (Psalm 9:16).
Mem m (Mah) – water
Vav (Waw) – tent peg
Quph – horizon
Sin – thorn
Mem [Mah] – water – the ancient Hebrew drew a symbol for water (horizontal wavy line, similar to how youngsters still indicate waves of water] – representing the meaning of liquid, water and sea, mighty and massive from the size of the sea, and chaos from the storms so common in the open sea. To the Hebrew, the sea was a feared and unknown place, and for this reason, this letter is used commonly as a question word – who, what, when, why, and how – in the sense of searching for the unknown – clarification for when one is floundering in a chaotic situation, being tossed about, unsure of a direction, without sure course.
Waw [vav] – tent peg – the ancient symbol here being a symbol for the “Y” peg or hook commonly used in construction of a Semitic tent; meaning to add or secure, fastened.
Quph – horizon – a symbol of the sun, setting or rising across the horizon; carrying the meaning of revolution, circle – often being “condensed” or collected, even separated, as light gathers at the horizons as the sun rises or falls, and when the light becomes separated from the darkness at the horizon just before dawn, or just before dusk.
Shin – the two front teeth – meaning teeth, sharp, press (from the function of teeth when chewing, eating) – a sustaining function – one is what they eat.
fqwooom (left to right mem, waw, quph, shin) combined, mowqesh reflects one who has become gathered in, collected, separated, and then secured or fastened, and to left to feed – but not on the food provided by God, but on calamity, confusion, being tossed about in uncertainty – a situation which ultimately results in one’s death or final destruction. The word is very similar to qadash but quite telling is the absence of the tent of Jehovah, d – and added is the chaotic sense of mem m
In contrast, there is “holy”, qadash) a collecting, gathering, and separating (quph), to dwell in the tent of God (dal), to be sustained by the food God offers (shin)
In the instruction then given to Ezekiel, Jehovah is telling him not to tremble at the faces or the words of those he is about to enter with – for in so doing, he would become snared and trapped (Proverbs 29:25) – just as they were – and instead of performing the will of God, he would be separating himself from God, to end up in fact being secured and fastened to those feeding on confusion – lost – from the very path of God which leads to life. And so he must not tremble or fear man, but rather, as Jesus says, keep your fear and trembling on Jehovah.
The words and the faces of those who bring confrontation against the word of God, should be dealt with, but not dwelt upon, for their very purpose may simply be a snare, a diversion which leads one away from their God established purpose - a purpose for a Christian which is to declare the good news of the Kingdom of God, and not to become ensnared in small battles with those who would serve only as distracter from this commission. If one continues to argue and become entangled in the snare of linguistic detail, one cannot simultaneously be expending full effort on declaring the good news.
Friday, September 15, 2006
The Fear of God
In Hebrew, when two nouns are placed together they are referred to as being in the "construct state" - meaning that these two words should be considered one – the first occurring or preceding noun being a possession of the subsequent noun. A few very quick examples from the Hebrew text:
The word of Jehovah [dabar yhwh] (Genesis 15:1)
The voice of Jehovah [qowl yhwh] (Genesis 3:8)
The face of Jehovah [paniym yhwh] (Genesis 4:16)
The mount of Jehovah [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
The name of Jehovah [shem yhwh] (Genesis 4:26)
The eyes of Jehovah [`ayin yhwh] (Genesis 6:8)
The garden of Jehovah [gan yhwh] (Genesis 13:10)T
he angel (messenger) of Jehovah [mal'ak yhwh] (Genesis 16:7)
The way (path or road) of Jehovah [derek yhwh] (Genesis 18:19)
The mount of Jehovah [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
The subsequent noun (or yhwh in the above examples) in the Hebrew construct state, would be most familiar to English speakers as a "possessive noun". In English, possessive nouns are used to show possession (owning, or having). They are words that would normally be nouns, but are used as adjectives to modify a noun or pronoun. Possessive nouns tell you who or what the modified noun or pronoun belongs to. Example:
The subsequent noun (or yhwh in the above examples) in the Hebrew construct state, would be most familiar to English speakers as a "possessive noun". In English, possessive nouns are used to show possession (owning, or having). They are words that would normally be nouns, but are used as adjectives to modify a noun or pronoun. Possessive nouns tell you who or what the modified noun or pronoun belongs to. Example:
The dog's collar is too large.
The word "dog's" is the possessive noun. It tells you that the noun "collar" belongs to the dog. The dog owns, or possesses the collar. In English we add an "'s" to the end of a singular noun to make it possessive. In ancient Hebrew, it is somewhat similar, except that the modified noun always occurs first (preceding), followed by the subsequent construct noun (possessive). In this manner, the Hebrew made the singular noun possessive.
Changing the English example of the dog and collar above to Hebrew would result in "collar dog" – which in English would simply be the "dog's collar" or even "the collar of the dog". Equally valid, you could express in English the above examples of Hebrew as:
Jehovah's word [dabar yhwh] (Genesis 15:1)
Jehovah's voice [qowl yhwh] (Genesis 3:8)
Jehovah's face [paniym yhwh] (Genesis 4:16)
Jehovah's name [shem yhwh] (Genesis 4:26)
Jehovah's eye [`ayin yhwh] (Genesis 6:8)
Jehovah's garden [gan yhwh] (Genesis 13:10)
Jehovah's angel (messenger) [mal'ak yhwh] (Genesis 16:7)
Jehovah's way (path or road) [derek yhwh] (Genesis 18:19)
Jehovah's mount [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
Simple enough.
Which brings me to the point of this post. The phrase "fearing the Lord", or "the fear of God" – which, understandably, always seems to cause much discussion, sometimes quite heated. After all, who wants to admit they worship or honor something simply because they are "afraid" of it?
What kind of god would even require that of one of its creations? The famous phrase "fearing God" or "the fear of God" comes from 18 occurrences of the construct state "yir'at yhwh") –one of the most well known is probably Proverbs 15:33, which reads:
"The fear of Jehovah [yir'at yhwh] is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor." Another clue that these two nouns [yir'at yhwh] do in fact represent a Hebrew construct state expression, is change of the letter ה (h) in the word yir'ah (fear) to a letter ת (t). When the first word of the construct phrase ends with the letter ה (h), it is always changed to the letter ת (t).
So this becomes the interesting part.
What you really have here is not "fear of Jehovah", but rather "Jehovah's fear" – or: "Jehovah's fear [yir'at yhwh] is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor." The "fear" in the phrase "the fear of the Lord" or "the fear of Jehovah" is not our fear, it is God's fear. Because God cannot "fear" it might help to look to the Ancient Hebrew concrete meaning of this word in order to understand why and in what sense the author felt compelled to present this particular construct state expression.
And if you have always thought that this meant to "fear God", (i.e., be afraid of God) then maybe it is time to possibly re-think. You will find numerous Christian apologetics, which would state that this usage meant simple "a deep respect for", or "in awe of" would be a better translation – and you will even find a few modern Bibles have implemented such a change. And to a certain extent, yes, the base word yare (of which yir'ah is a derivative with the same basic meaning of fearing, or fear), can in certain context be best represented as "awe" or "deep respect", "deep honor" and so on.
But that does not work here in Proverbs 15:33 because "yir'at yhwh" in this usage is clearly a construct state expression, or possessive noun modifier. Ancient Hebrew uses "concrete" expressions, whereas our English and most non-Semitic languages use or employ "abstract" expressions. Those who read my posts , has likely heard me use that expression many times "in it's concrete Hebrew meaning".
Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and idea in way that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. All five senses are used when speaking, hearing, writing or reading ancient Hebrew (and even to a certain extent, modern Hebrew and Yiddish). A Greek or Latin based language uses abstract (words based on description or appearance of items), whereas Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to their function. For example, a "Greek" based description of a pencil would be, "it is yellow and about eight inches long". An ancient Hebrew description of the same pencil would relate to its function, or something like "I write words with it".
To our western trained abstract minds, a deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way. The Hebrew word for both deer and oak however, is the same – "ayil" – because the functional description of these two objects is the same – so the Hebrew used the same word for both. The Hebrew concrete definition of "ayil" is "strong leader", which can be seen clearly in its ancient paleo form. A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest, and is seen as a strong leader. The wood of the oak tree is very hard, and as compared to other trees it also is considered a "strong leader". In Psalms 29:9 the KJV and the NASB both read, "The voice of the Lord makes the deer [ayil] to calve", while the NIV translates the same verse as "The voice of the Lord twists the oaks [ayil]".
Putting the verse into the Hebrew concrete meaning would result simple in "The voice of the Lord makes the strong leaders turn." I know the concrete meaning of yare, and its derivative yir'at, as used in the above discussion of Proverbs 15:33, and so I do not believe that being afraid of God is the first step towards wisdom, but rather that God's fear (yir'at) is the first step towards wisdom. In its concrete meaning, yare means simply "flow", like a rushing river flows, the throwing down or flow of water in a rain, the flow or rush of a fast moving arrow.
If you have ever been "afraid" or in complete "awe" or suddenly become "enlightend" of something you know the feeling of the inner "flow" or "rush" quite well, and it is in this regard that yare can relate to fear. Common synonyms include pahad, hata, and harad, as several words related to flow also in the sense of quaking or shaking. So then, what is God's yare which is the beginning of wisdom?
Simply compare Proverbs 15:33 with Exodus 31:3 - "And I have filled him with the spirit of God (ru'act yhwh), in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship."It is "the Spirit of God or God's spirit)" that gives us wisdom in the same way that "the fear of the Lord (or Lord's fear)" does. The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ru'ach" literally means the "wind," which is also a flowing albeit of air - an unseen impersonal force enacting upon other things. The "fear of God" (or God's fear) is his spirit which "flows" or "rushes" out of him into us - and enacts upon us, and this is the beginning of his providing wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
One must remember that "fear" is an English word, not a Hebrew word. Toss it away - think about that word no more and instead try this: the root meaning (e.g., yr) of the words yara (yare masculine, yirah fem), and yarah is "to flow" and is related to words meaning rain or stream as a flowing of water.
From "YR" (the parent root) comes yare, yirah, yarah, and all other forms of YR. To the Hebrew mind, fear can be what is felt when in danger, or what is felt when in the presence of an awesome sight or person of great authority. These feelings "flow out" of the person naturally in such ways or actions as shaking when in fear, or bowing down in awe of one in great authority (hence yare, yirah, yarah, etc). And this sense of "flowing out" is contained in the Hebrew parent root for all these words. Hosea 6:3, "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain (yarah), as the latter [and] former rain (yarah) unto the earth."
As rain. Falling down in plentiful. A "flowing" of water from the sky. Yarah, whose parent root is YR, just as it is the parent root for yare/yirah.Yirah (yare fem form) when used as a noun, in a possessive noun construct, it becomes yirat, as in yirat'yhwh, or Jehovah's yirat (in the KJV, "fear of the Lord", or "Lord's fear", or more concretely in Hebrew, "flow of the Lord", or "the Lord's flow"), a flowing down, like rain.
But a flowing of what?
Ru'ach--his "spirit" which leads one to "knowledge", "understanding", "wisdom", "discernment" according to the Scriptures.Exodus 31:3 - "And I have filled him with the spirit of God (ru'act yhwh), in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship."
The word of Jehovah [dabar yhwh] (Genesis 15:1)
The voice of Jehovah [qowl yhwh] (Genesis 3:8)
The face of Jehovah [paniym yhwh] (Genesis 4:16)
The mount of Jehovah [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
The name of Jehovah [shem yhwh] (Genesis 4:26)
The eyes of Jehovah [`ayin yhwh] (Genesis 6:8)
The garden of Jehovah [gan yhwh] (Genesis 13:10)T
he angel (messenger) of Jehovah [mal'ak yhwh] (Genesis 16:7)
The way (path or road) of Jehovah [derek yhwh] (Genesis 18:19)
The mount of Jehovah [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
The subsequent noun (or yhwh in the above examples) in the Hebrew construct state, would be most familiar to English speakers as a "possessive noun". In English, possessive nouns are used to show possession (owning, or having). They are words that would normally be nouns, but are used as adjectives to modify a noun or pronoun. Possessive nouns tell you who or what the modified noun or pronoun belongs to. Example:
The subsequent noun (or yhwh in the above examples) in the Hebrew construct state, would be most familiar to English speakers as a "possessive noun". In English, possessive nouns are used to show possession (owning, or having). They are words that would normally be nouns, but are used as adjectives to modify a noun or pronoun. Possessive nouns tell you who or what the modified noun or pronoun belongs to. Example:
The dog's collar is too large.
The word "dog's" is the possessive noun. It tells you that the noun "collar" belongs to the dog. The dog owns, or possesses the collar. In English we add an "'s" to the end of a singular noun to make it possessive. In ancient Hebrew, it is somewhat similar, except that the modified noun always occurs first (preceding), followed by the subsequent construct noun (possessive). In this manner, the Hebrew made the singular noun possessive.
Changing the English example of the dog and collar above to Hebrew would result in "collar dog" – which in English would simply be the "dog's collar" or even "the collar of the dog". Equally valid, you could express in English the above examples of Hebrew as:
Jehovah's word [dabar yhwh] (Genesis 15:1)
Jehovah's voice [qowl yhwh] (Genesis 3:8)
Jehovah's face [paniym yhwh] (Genesis 4:16)
Jehovah's name [shem yhwh] (Genesis 4:26)
Jehovah's eye [`ayin yhwh] (Genesis 6:8)
Jehovah's garden [gan yhwh] (Genesis 13:10)
Jehovah's angel (messenger) [mal'ak yhwh] (Genesis 16:7)
Jehovah's way (path or road) [derek yhwh] (Genesis 18:19)
Jehovah's mount [har yhwh] (Genesis 22:14)
Simple enough.
Which brings me to the point of this post. The phrase "fearing the Lord", or "the fear of God" – which, understandably, always seems to cause much discussion, sometimes quite heated. After all, who wants to admit they worship or honor something simply because they are "afraid" of it?
What kind of god would even require that of one of its creations? The famous phrase "fearing God" or "the fear of God" comes from 18 occurrences of the construct state "yir'at yhwh") –one of the most well known is probably Proverbs 15:33, which reads:
"The fear of Jehovah [yir'at yhwh] is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor." Another clue that these two nouns [yir'at yhwh] do in fact represent a Hebrew construct state expression, is change of the letter ה (h) in the word yir'ah (fear) to a letter ת (t). When the first word of the construct phrase ends with the letter ה (h), it is always changed to the letter ת (t).
So this becomes the interesting part.
What you really have here is not "fear of Jehovah", but rather "Jehovah's fear" – or: "Jehovah's fear [yir'at yhwh] is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor." The "fear" in the phrase "the fear of the Lord" or "the fear of Jehovah" is not our fear, it is God's fear. Because God cannot "fear" it might help to look to the Ancient Hebrew concrete meaning of this word in order to understand why and in what sense the author felt compelled to present this particular construct state expression.
And if you have always thought that this meant to "fear God", (i.e., be afraid of God) then maybe it is time to possibly re-think. You will find numerous Christian apologetics, which would state that this usage meant simple "a deep respect for", or "in awe of" would be a better translation – and you will even find a few modern Bibles have implemented such a change. And to a certain extent, yes, the base word yare (of which yir'ah is a derivative with the same basic meaning of fearing, or fear), can in certain context be best represented as "awe" or "deep respect", "deep honor" and so on.
But that does not work here in Proverbs 15:33 because "yir'at yhwh" in this usage is clearly a construct state expression, or possessive noun modifier. Ancient Hebrew uses "concrete" expressions, whereas our English and most non-Semitic languages use or employ "abstract" expressions. Those who read my posts , has likely heard me use that expression many times "in it's concrete Hebrew meaning".
Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and idea in way that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. All five senses are used when speaking, hearing, writing or reading ancient Hebrew (and even to a certain extent, modern Hebrew and Yiddish). A Greek or Latin based language uses abstract (words based on description or appearance of items), whereas Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to their function. For example, a "Greek" based description of a pencil would be, "it is yellow and about eight inches long". An ancient Hebrew description of the same pencil would relate to its function, or something like "I write words with it".
To our western trained abstract minds, a deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way. The Hebrew word for both deer and oak however, is the same – "ayil" – because the functional description of these two objects is the same – so the Hebrew used the same word for both. The Hebrew concrete definition of "ayil" is "strong leader", which can be seen clearly in its ancient paleo form. A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest, and is seen as a strong leader. The wood of the oak tree is very hard, and as compared to other trees it also is considered a "strong leader". In Psalms 29:9 the KJV and the NASB both read, "The voice of the Lord makes the deer [ayil] to calve", while the NIV translates the same verse as "The voice of the Lord twists the oaks [ayil]".
Putting the verse into the Hebrew concrete meaning would result simple in "The voice of the Lord makes the strong leaders turn." I know the concrete meaning of yare, and its derivative yir'at, as used in the above discussion of Proverbs 15:33, and so I do not believe that being afraid of God is the first step towards wisdom, but rather that God's fear (yir'at) is the first step towards wisdom. In its concrete meaning, yare means simply "flow", like a rushing river flows, the throwing down or flow of water in a rain, the flow or rush of a fast moving arrow.
If you have ever been "afraid" or in complete "awe" or suddenly become "enlightend" of something you know the feeling of the inner "flow" or "rush" quite well, and it is in this regard that yare can relate to fear. Common synonyms include pahad, hata, and harad, as several words related to flow also in the sense of quaking or shaking. So then, what is God's yare which is the beginning of wisdom?
Simply compare Proverbs 15:33 with Exodus 31:3 - "And I have filled him with the spirit of God (ru'act yhwh), in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship."It is "the Spirit of God or God's spirit)" that gives us wisdom in the same way that "the fear of the Lord (or Lord's fear)" does. The Hebrew word for "spirit" is "ru'ach" literally means the "wind," which is also a flowing albeit of air - an unseen impersonal force enacting upon other things. The "fear of God" (or God's fear) is his spirit which "flows" or "rushes" out of him into us - and enacts upon us, and this is the beginning of his providing wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
One must remember that "fear" is an English word, not a Hebrew word. Toss it away - think about that word no more and instead try this: the root meaning (e.g., yr) of the words yara (yare masculine, yirah fem), and yarah is "to flow" and is related to words meaning rain or stream as a flowing of water.
From "YR" (the parent root) comes yare, yirah, yarah, and all other forms of YR. To the Hebrew mind, fear can be what is felt when in danger, or what is felt when in the presence of an awesome sight or person of great authority. These feelings "flow out" of the person naturally in such ways or actions as shaking when in fear, or bowing down in awe of one in great authority (hence yare, yirah, yarah, etc). And this sense of "flowing out" is contained in the Hebrew parent root for all these words. Hosea 6:3, "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain (yarah), as the latter [and] former rain (yarah) unto the earth."
As rain. Falling down in plentiful. A "flowing" of water from the sky. Yarah, whose parent root is YR, just as it is the parent root for yare/yirah.Yirah (yare fem form) when used as a noun, in a possessive noun construct, it becomes yirat, as in yirat'yhwh, or Jehovah's yirat (in the KJV, "fear of the Lord", or "Lord's fear", or more concretely in Hebrew, "flow of the Lord", or "the Lord's flow"), a flowing down, like rain.
But a flowing of what?
Ru'ach--his "spirit" which leads one to "knowledge", "understanding", "wisdom", "discernment" according to the Scriptures.Exodus 31:3 - "And I have filled him with the spirit of God (ru'act yhwh), in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship."
How is this "filling" done?
The Proverb posted above tells us how - Jehovah's yirat – his flow, like rain – as Hosea states above, "then we shall know". Proverbs 15:33, which reads, "The fear of Jehovah [yir'at yhwh] is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor."But it might better read, "Jehovah's flow is instruction in wisdom, and humility goes before honor." The same construct is used in Psalms 111:10 which reads, "fear of Jehovah [yir'at yhwh] is the beginning of wisdom." But it might better read, "Jehovah's flow is the beginning of wisdom." Isaiah 11:9 speaks of the coming time when the "earth filled with the knowledge of Jehovah". Did not Jesus himself say about his Father, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" – John 17:3.
Knowledge. Accurate knowledge. The beginning of wisdom is the release of God's flow (yirat) of r'ach (spirit). A ru'ach which brings accurate knowledge.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Thinking About Yohm
Yohm can equally express a point in time as well as a sphere of time. It is used to denote (i) the period of light (as opposed to darkness), (ii) a period of a full 24 hours, (iii) a general vague period of time or era, (iv) a specific point in time, (v) an entire year (as in in 1 Samuel 27:7; Exodus 13:10, etc), and (vi) a period of specified time measured by two extraordinary events.There is much material available on the etymological and cultural nuances of this one little word. As a serious introduction to study, I would suggest E.J. Young's Studies in Genesis One, Presbyterian and Reformed - although a publication nearly 40 years old now, it is still one of the best ever written.
The creative days of Genesis are conspicuously patterned, chronological, of indeterminable length, intended to show - at a very summary level view - how Yhwh changed the uninhabitable and unformed into the habitable and formed from 1:3 to 32.Genesis indicates the closer of all six creative days/periods, and closure of the group of all six as "one day" in itself. God's day of rest commenced with the beginning of the seventh creative day, and according to the author of Hebrews at 4:1-11 and Psalm 95:7-8, and 11, that 7th period was still open for entering into at the time of David and even Paul, and I would suggest even today.
Could God have created or formed the entirety of creation in 6 days? Probably. Maybe. 6 minutes I suppose would also be possible, or 6 seconds, or even in the twinkling of an eye.But if we are to believe that "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and the work of his hands the expanse is telling" (Psalms 19:1), and if we are to believe "His invisible qualities are cleary seen from the world's creation onward .." (Psalms 104:24) - then we must also give adequate consideration that:
- Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere, and that it takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth - meaning that the light you now see is at least that old in our time - this alone indicates that the universe is at least millions of years old, if not older; and
- End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.
If the expanse is then "telling", and the created world giving "testimony" to its creator and the creation, it might be of some benefit to listen to what the heavenly expanse and earth are testifying to - and then maybe reassess the validity of retaining tradition over truth (Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:13, Col 2:8, and so on).
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Death of Immortality
For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings, emotion, and thought was the purview of philosophers and theologians. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli though use of small levels of electricity and chemical manipulation. Damasio’s efforts presented some obvious and significant questions for the aforementioned philosophers and theologians
For example, is there really a difference between ‘body’ and ‘mind? And if the suspicions turn proof that there is no difference, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we have no souls, no personal spirit, which can escape our death by separation from the body? It may very well be that science soon proves that our bodies and our “minds” are one in the same biological unit – functioning as a whole – even providing us with our own sense of self. And this ‘sense’ itself may prove to be rooted in pure biology rather than theosophy or philosophy. Man’s “consciousness” may simply prove to be no more than biological man himself. Christian de Duve states in his recent publication “Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning” from the Oxford University Press (2002, p.108) that:
For example, is there really a difference between ‘body’ and ‘mind? And if the suspicions turn proof that there is no difference, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we have no souls, no personal spirit, which can escape our death by separation from the body? It may very well be that science soon proves that our bodies and our “minds” are one in the same biological unit – functioning as a whole – even providing us with our own sense of self. And this ‘sense’ itself may prove to be rooted in pure biology rather than theosophy or philosophy. Man’s “consciousness” may simply prove to be no more than biological man himself. Christian de Duve states in his recent publication “Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning” from the Oxford University Press (2002, p.108) that:
"The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows."
According to the scientists – it is looking more and more like we are nothing more than the sum of our biological parts – and when these biological parts eventually quit functioning, we as a person - being a single biological entity, including our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, and all the elements of who we are – cease to exist. Death, it appears, is not only inevitable, it appears it may also be final. It is a matter of debate whether animals have an awareness of mortality or not, but it is certain that man alone among all living creatures knows that he has to die. This we all seem to understand – yet – as Martin Heidegger shrewdly observed that the proposition, “all men are mortal” usually involves the deeply personal tacit reservation “but not I.
Even as Freud, and Schopenhauer before him pointed out, “deep down” even contemporary man does not “really” believe in his own death. This internal inconsistency is certainly not new – it is seen manifest in the earliest pages of the Hebrew Bereshit (Genesis) as Eve juggles between the two choices placed in front of her:
Genesis 3:3, “God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’
Or -
Genesis 3:4, “You positively will not die.
The implication here is quite simple – in whom do you demonstrate faith by virtue of action - either God was lying and she was immortal and could not die by definition (i.e., continued existence did not necessarily depend on obeying God), or he was not lying, and death was very much “reality” (i.e., continued existence does necessarily depend on obeying God). Not long after choosing a mark for herself - her husband, Adam, was faced with a similar choice.
Outside of the writings in the Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy the time nor the historical sequence of mankind’s discovery of the two elements of death — its inevitability as well as its finality. But there was surely some point in time when someone first contemplated death as being inevitable and final (the natural observation) - and likewise there was also some point in time when someone imagined that what they observed was not reality – saying as suggested by Heidegger, “but not I.
Likely the two discoveries were closely associated. While the Hebrew Scriptures never assign “immortality” as a trait to earthly man or woman in any literal, figurative, or symbolic sense (except perhaps for the unrecorded thoughts which may have occurred to both Adam and Eve as they determined their choice)– the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic does. It offers us the first written record of mankind’s thoughts regarding his immortality. It is in the Gilgamesh Epics (a written account reflecting in part long held Babylonian/Chaldean/Sumerian religious thoughts) that the realization of the inevitability of death as well as its possible finality seem to have occurred simultaneously. If this is so, it is pointless to ask which of the two produced the greater shock. But again on the basis of the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh legend, there can be no doubt about its severity. It may have been this very severity which eventually gave birth to the thought of immortality.
While King Gilgamesh strongly suspects that death may well be total extinction, or a state of nonexistence, the predominant view of death of his contemporaries was that the dead somehow continue to exist (i.e., immortality of man). But one cannot help but be impressed by the somber and frightening nature of the afterlife as it appears in the Babylonian and the later related early Greek mythologies. Typical is Achilles' complaint in the Odyssey that it is better to be a slave on earth than a king in the realm of phantoms – but nonetheless – the immortality of mortal man took firm root and began to grow.
The after-life existence eventually evolved into more pleasant concepts for the good (or those pleasing to the gods), and worse concepts for the bad (or those rejected by the gods). Undoubtedly, Adam and Eve, having chosen to believe their creator a liar, likely began to entertain similar thoughts much earlier in denial of the absolute reality of death, in the hope that life would continue in some form or other after the physical body has proven its mortality by falling into the article of death and corruption. It is, after-all, what the serpent was selling, and that product which they choose to invest.
Nevertheless, such entertaining thoughts of immortality easily and quickly spread outward from earliest Mesopotamia through later Egypt, India, China, and Europe – just as man spread out across the land – his pleasurable ideas of immorality went with him.
There was one notable exception.
The path of immortality was basically ignored, in fact rejected, by a lesser known, lesser prominent, ancient Semitic peoples – the Hebrew. Though being of the same Semitic roots as those so eagerly embracing thoughts of immortality – history records a clear philosophical and theological separation - distancing the ancient Hebrew from the Mesopotamians in regards to thoughts on life and man’s mortality. The only real difference between the two emerging cultures being their gods – the Hebrew god claiming origin over Adam and Eve (a god who we saw earlier told of death), and the Chaldeans and Sumerian gods, who offered comforting ideas of immortality.
As reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures, the God of the Hebrews further explained exactly what death was. The majority of the ancient Hebrew people denied thoughts that man was immortal. Such thoughts being based on what they were taught by their God – thoughts which were reflected ultimately in their historical religious texts. For the ancient Hebrew, death was a reality in every sense of the word. It is a condition or state in which the "breath of life" (ruach) the life giving force from God has been withdrawn, and the living-breathing creature (ne’phesh) dies as a result and no longer has any existence whatsoever. It means a complete and total cessation of life. For the ancient Hebrew it was clear, death was nothing more than the opposite of life – an absence of life. This is clearly reflected in a plethora of passages from Hebrew Scripture (e.g., “For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19); "The dead know nothing . . . There is no pursuit, no plan, no knowledge or intelligence, within the grave." (Eccl 9:5, 10), The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4). "his spirit (ruach – God life giving force) goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish" (Psalm 146:4)). Two out of every three occurrences of ne’phesh (that which man is – a living breathing creature) in the Hebrew Scriptures refers soberly to the mortality of the ne’phesh and ultimate liability to death.
According to the ancient Hebrew, the dead no longer existed, knew nothing, had no thoughts, could not see, hear, or speak. The ne’phesh dies, and the ru’ach (what we call spirit today in English) was merely God’s unseen life giving force which enacted upon the ne’phesh, it itself returned to God – leaving the living breathing creature called man with nothing more.
He was dead.
The ancient Hebrew held these thoughts for hundred of years before being reintroduced to immortality in Mesopotamia likely as a result of the Babylonian exile, combined with eventual Hellenistic and Zoroastrism influences. Many diverted away from the mortality of man concept, but many also held fast – recognizing that although death was a state of nonexistence a hope for resurrection or being remembered by God was hinted at in their same Scriptures.
One of the most well written and famous proponents of the immortality of man was Plato - a thinker, who was strongly influenced himself by much earlier Babylonian religious traditions. Plato, who lived about 427-347BC, and has been regarded as one of the most important thinkers and writers in the history of Western culture, expanded on the concept of man’s immortality. He was a philosopher and an educator, but all his so -called "wisdom" was the product of his own mind, supported by ideas and philosophies adopted from the teachings of others. His influence on both religious and philosophical thought was considerable and widespread, even today. Plato's concept of the immortal soul built upon the earlier foundations established in Mesopotamia – he taught that the soul left the body and migrated to what he termed the "realm of the pure forms" from which, after a time, the soul may even return to the earth in another form.
By now, nearly all the world’s religious organizations subscribed to the concept of an immortal man – something which transcends the death of the man. It was these Hellenistic, Zoroastrism, and Platonic concepts which were adopted by the greater majority of the world’s religious organizations. They, like Adam and Eve, choose to believe that they “would positively not die”. By this point, there was no longer a single religious system which had not been infiltrated with the idea of man’s immortality. But the immortality doctrine monopoly was short lived.
Shortly following Plato, came Epicurus. According to Epicurus the fear of death is one of the two major afflictions of mankind, the other being the fear of the gods. Accordingly, he did away with both, and is proven to have given birth to the more modern secular movements (Rationalists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Atheists, Secularists, Humanists, et al). According to Epicurus, man fears death because he erroneously believes that he will experience pain and suffer after he has died (the concept originating in Mesopotamia). But, says Epicurus, death is deprivation of sensation. As to the soul it too does not survive death because, as Democritus has taught, like all things, it too consists of atoms (albeit particularly fine ones) which will disperse at death. Consequently “Death, the most terrifying of all ills, is nothing to us, since as long as we exist, death is not with us, and when death comes, then we do not exist".
God was dismissed, and immortality executed.
The period spanning the time from Gassendi to Jefferson is called "the Enlightenment", an appropriate title for the era where political authoritarianism, faith-mongering and claims of a divinely-ordered cosmos, and the mystical doctrines of astrology and alchemy, were abandoned in favor of modern science and intellectual and political freedom. With the exception of Jefferson, Epicurus's role in providing the philosophical foundations for the Enlightenment was largely unacknowledged, as there was still considerable prejudice against non-Christians that kept Epicurus in the closet, or at least dressed up with suitably Christianized or Deistic doctrines – but it cannot be denied today, that much of our secular, scientific based communities are established in part due to Epicurus.
Though adequate recognition is given to the various shades of grey from a former art student, our world today consists largely of two groups - .those descendents of Mesopotamia who hold man to be immortal in one sense or another, and those descendants of Epicurus, who typically do not. And it is to that end, that, as quoted above, that Christian de Duve in his recent publication states, “The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows” becomes most significant.
It appears as though the Epicurean children may win out after all.
Man is not immortal, and probably is nothing more than flesh, blood, and bone, just as the ancient Hebrew once believed. It appears it may very well be quite true as modern neurologists are empirically proving - . What we “are” is “us” – a living breathing creature fully contained in flesh, and blood, and bone (i.e., ne’phesh). There is life, and there is death, and death itself may simply be just as the earliest Hebrews informed us by the Word of their God - the dead no longer exist, know nothing, have no thoughts, cannot see, hear, or speak.
But what I personally find so irresistibly ironic in all of this (or perhaps it is poetic justice of some sort), as a proclaimed follower of Jehovah and his son, Jesus, is that those secular and scientific communities - the offspring in part of the Epicureans - who would now be the first to deny the existence of Jehovah (or any god or gods) are the very ones who are now providing evidence in support of the truth of His original statement “You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that You do not die” and that man is not immortal.
While on the other hand – Those religious systems which on the whole include the majority of Christendom, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, the Great Mystery Religions, et al, who would be the first to proclaim the existence of an eternal superior being or force, are in fact the ones being proved false through their own acceptance of the words of the serpent – “You shall not positively die” – those who to this day imply by their very thought Jehovah to be a liar.
The godless are ultimately proving the truth spoken by a god they do not believe exists, while those claiming to be god-fearing have chosen to believe the lie made against the very god they claim to believe.
Let There Be Light - Bara or ha'yah
"Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."In this passage, was God creating light or was he giving it permission?”
My answer would be, given the two choices presented, was that “he gave it permission”, in the sense of being the cause of the what was to be the effect. Here is why.
In Genesis 1:3, which you present in English above, reads in the Hebrew as, “Vayomer Elohim yah-owr ha’yah-owr” The phrase used here is ‘yah (or ha’yah, or vayehi) ‘owr (‘or). – “let there be (hayah) light (‘owr).
Ha’yah (hwh, or hyh) is a word of “cause”, as in cause “to be”, cause “to become”, cause to “come to pass”, cause to “exist”, cause to “happen”, and so. In its numerous uses in the Hebrew text, it is rarely used in the sense to denote simple “existence” or the identification of a thing or person. It is in fact, a portion of the tetragrammaton (the name of the true Hebrew god), Yhwh, (meaning he causes to be). This is also emphasized in the context, wherein the root alone (‘yah) is used first, and the definitive ha’yah is used last (cause, and effect – God saying let there be light (cause –yah’owr) and then light occurs (effect – definitive, ha’yah-owr).
In the context of Genesis 1:3, its use is preceded by a “command” Vayomer Elohim – “God said” – commanded (yah-owr)– and the light was caused to be (ha’yah-owr). God was the “cause” of light being brought into existence. A command was given, carried out, and returned the exact results as commanded (there is more in this area if you are ever interested, having to do with God’s master worker, and the employment of “us” later on in Genesis, and claims made by Jesus, and John).
This is quite different than had it been written “Vayomer Elohim bara owr, ha’bara owr” or “God said I create light, and light was created” - the sense of “cause” being absent.
The first use of “bara” occurs in Genesis 1:1, “Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.” - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Here the word used is created – “bara’ – a word used in the Qal only of God’s activity – a distinct use of the word appropriate to the concept of creation by divine fiat. The root bara denotes the concept of personally “initiating something new” versus causing something to occur, or come to be, or cause to happen. In Isaiah 41:20 it is used of the changes which will take place in the restoration when God “affects” that which is new and different. It is used in the creation of “new things” (hadashot) in Isaiah 48:6-7 and the “creation” of the “new earth and new heaven”. Marvels never seen before are described by use of “bara” as in Exodus 34:10. The word also possesses the meaning of bringing into existence, almost exclusively, in a personal manner directly by God himself, rather than God being the underlying initial cause of the events which took place to bring his command, or word, to full and complete fruition (cause to be sense of ha’yah).
In the sense that God was the cause “to be” (’yah) of light, he gave a command, or “permission”, and his instructions were complied with, and light came to be (ha’yah).
The Bible claims that is it because (cause) of God’s “will” that ALL things “existed and were created” – Re 4:11, and while this is quite true, being the cause of will does not require one to actually be the workman who carried it out – this is confirmed Proverbs 8:12, and 8:22-31. Identification of this “masterworker” came later, as according to the Christian Greek, Jehovah’s first creation “in the beginning” was his only-begotten (only directly created) son (John 3:16) “the beginning of the creation by God” (Rev 3:14). This one, “the firstborn of all creation” was used by Jehovah in creating all things in heaven and earth (ha’yah) – the “things visible and the things invisible” (Col 1:15-17).
Bara’ is used to identify the creator of the created heavens and earth, in the first verse of Genesis, and is not used again for anything “created”, until man is created, and again, bara is used, but only after reference is made to the agency employed in Genesis 1:26 – in which the word used in ‘asar, meaning to do or make, bringing forth through “forming” (‘asar) something new “bara” – as man was the something new formed from the earth itself. And again, the act of agency is invoked, in “let us”.
My answer would be, given the two choices presented, was that “he gave it permission”, in the sense of being the cause of the what was to be the effect. Here is why.
In Genesis 1:3, which you present in English above, reads in the Hebrew as, “Vayomer Elohim yah-owr ha’yah-owr” The phrase used here is ‘yah (or ha’yah, or vayehi) ‘owr (‘or). – “let there be (hayah) light (‘owr).
Ha’yah (hwh, or hyh) is a word of “cause”, as in cause “to be”, cause “to become”, cause to “come to pass”, cause to “exist”, cause to “happen”, and so. In its numerous uses in the Hebrew text, it is rarely used in the sense to denote simple “existence” or the identification of a thing or person. It is in fact, a portion of the tetragrammaton (the name of the true Hebrew god), Yhwh, (meaning he causes to be). This is also emphasized in the context, wherein the root alone (‘yah) is used first, and the definitive ha’yah is used last (cause, and effect – God saying let there be light (cause –yah’owr) and then light occurs (effect – definitive, ha’yah-owr).
In the context of Genesis 1:3, its use is preceded by a “command” Vayomer Elohim – “God said” – commanded (yah-owr)– and the light was caused to be (ha’yah-owr). God was the “cause” of light being brought into existence. A command was given, carried out, and returned the exact results as commanded (there is more in this area if you are ever interested, having to do with God’s master worker, and the employment of “us” later on in Genesis, and claims made by Jesus, and John).
This is quite different than had it been written “Vayomer Elohim bara owr, ha’bara owr” or “God said I create light, and light was created” - the sense of “cause” being absent.
The first use of “bara” occurs in Genesis 1:1, “Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.” - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Here the word used is created – “bara’ – a word used in the Qal only of God’s activity – a distinct use of the word appropriate to the concept of creation by divine fiat. The root bara denotes the concept of personally “initiating something new” versus causing something to occur, or come to be, or cause to happen. In Isaiah 41:20 it is used of the changes which will take place in the restoration when God “affects” that which is new and different. It is used in the creation of “new things” (hadashot) in Isaiah 48:6-7 and the “creation” of the “new earth and new heaven”. Marvels never seen before are described by use of “bara” as in Exodus 34:10. The word also possesses the meaning of bringing into existence, almost exclusively, in a personal manner directly by God himself, rather than God being the underlying initial cause of the events which took place to bring his command, or word, to full and complete fruition (cause to be sense of ha’yah).
In the sense that God was the cause “to be” (’yah) of light, he gave a command, or “permission”, and his instructions were complied with, and light came to be (ha’yah).
The Bible claims that is it because (cause) of God’s “will” that ALL things “existed and were created” – Re 4:11, and while this is quite true, being the cause of will does not require one to actually be the workman who carried it out – this is confirmed Proverbs 8:12, and 8:22-31. Identification of this “masterworker” came later, as according to the Christian Greek, Jehovah’s first creation “in the beginning” was his only-begotten (only directly created) son (John 3:16) “the beginning of the creation by God” (Rev 3:14). This one, “the firstborn of all creation” was used by Jehovah in creating all things in heaven and earth (ha’yah) – the “things visible and the things invisible” (Col 1:15-17).
Bara’ is used to identify the creator of the created heavens and earth, in the first verse of Genesis, and is not used again for anything “created”, until man is created, and again, bara is used, but only after reference is made to the agency employed in Genesis 1:26 – in which the word used in ‘asar, meaning to do or make, bringing forth through “forming” (‘asar) something new “bara” – as man was the something new formed from the earth itself. And again, the act of agency is invoked, in “let us”.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Jesus "saves" from .... what ?
If a court of law were to put a son in prison because his father had stolen a car, the son could rightly complain: "That is not just! I did not do anything wrong." - Deuteronomy 24:16. Yet it is stated, "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12 – a process of procreation). The children or offspring of Adam that were supposed to be born perfect with endless life ahead of them were brought forth with sickness, old age, and death as their prospect simply because they were procreated from an original ancestor after said ancestor had willfully departed from the protective covering from his creator that would have allowed him life everlasting (not the same as immortality, but rather an emulation, or shadowing of immortality provided by God assuming one stayed on the path established by the creator in order o enjoy this privilege). The solution that the true God provided to the problem created by Adam's departure away from God allows for each person eventually being presented an opportunity equal to that of Adam to obtain everlasting life on a paradise earth. That cannot be done in the manner under which we were procreated – it must die, we will die. But in death mankind in unable to raise himself back to life – and the law put in place requires a life for a life – so a ransom or covering was needed.
A ransom is a price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of ransom is a price which covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while redemption emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid. According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the most significant ransom price is the shed blood (or life) of Jesus – who was not an offspring of Adam, but Jehovah’s only firstborn, directly created, “son”. John refers to Jesus as monogenes theos. Not only did Jesus give up his own chance at a human life, he gave up his right to perfect offspring as well. A life for a life, an untold number or lives available to ransom the son of men (ben’adam) – making possible under the existing laws put in place by God the deliverance from death for the offspring of Adam who have been paying for sin through death because of who their father was.
In the various Hebrew and Greek terms translated “ransom” and “redeem”, the inherent similarities lie in the idea of a price, or thing of value, given, to effect the ransom, or redemption. The thought of “exchange” as well as that of correspondency, equivalence, or substitution, in common in all the original language words rendered.
That is, one thing is given for another, satisfying the demands of justice, and resulting in a balance of matters, as occurs in ALL things comprising the creation. It is how the creation operates, by design, a design which came into existence through the spoken word of God, which we are told never fails to come to full fruition.
The Hebrew noun ko’pher comes from the verb kaphar, meaning, basically, to “cover” as in Noah’s “covering” of the ark with tar (Genesis 6:14). Kaphar, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering or atonement of departures from the path established for mankind by his creator (i.e., sin).
The noun ko’pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price (Psalms 65:3, 78:38; and 79:8-9 for example). A covering corresponds to the thing ot covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the covering [kappo’reth] of the ark or the covenant (Ex 25:17-25), or in its value (as in payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).
At the time of Adam's sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans 7:9) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation. Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision. - 1Cor. 15:45; compare Romans 5:15-17.
Thus, Jesus was a "corresponding ransom," not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, his offspring, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb. 9:24). His ransom embraces more than those of his "Bride." (his anointed). In addition to those "bought from among mankind as a first fruits" to form the heavenly congregation of 144,000, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins (removal of the effects of being an offspring of Adam) - such other recipients of the ransom (Acts 24:15) benefits are earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "Eternal Father" (Christ versus Adam) they attain everlasting life. (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 21:2-4, 9 10; 22:17; compare Psalm 103: 2-5)
The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing underserved kindness and forgiving sins. Rom. 3:21-26.
A ransom is a price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of ransom is a price which covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while redemption emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid. According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the most significant ransom price is the shed blood (or life) of Jesus – who was not an offspring of Adam, but Jehovah’s only firstborn, directly created, “son”. John refers to Jesus as monogenes theos. Not only did Jesus give up his own chance at a human life, he gave up his right to perfect offspring as well. A life for a life, an untold number or lives available to ransom the son of men (ben’adam) – making possible under the existing laws put in place by God the deliverance from death for the offspring of Adam who have been paying for sin through death because of who their father was.
In the various Hebrew and Greek terms translated “ransom” and “redeem”, the inherent similarities lie in the idea of a price, or thing of value, given, to effect the ransom, or redemption. The thought of “exchange” as well as that of correspondency, equivalence, or substitution, in common in all the original language words rendered.
That is, one thing is given for another, satisfying the demands of justice, and resulting in a balance of matters, as occurs in ALL things comprising the creation. It is how the creation operates, by design, a design which came into existence through the spoken word of God, which we are told never fails to come to full fruition.
The Hebrew noun ko’pher comes from the verb kaphar, meaning, basically, to “cover” as in Noah’s “covering” of the ark with tar (Genesis 6:14). Kaphar, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering or atonement of departures from the path established for mankind by his creator (i.e., sin).
The noun ko’pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price (Psalms 65:3, 78:38; and 79:8-9 for example). A covering corresponds to the thing ot covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the covering [kappo’reth] of the ark or the covenant (Ex 25:17-25), or in its value (as in payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).
At the time of Adam's sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans 7:9) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation. Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision. - 1Cor. 15:45; compare Romans 5:15-17.
Thus, Jesus was a "corresponding ransom," not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, his offspring, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb. 9:24). His ransom embraces more than those of his "Bride." (his anointed). In addition to those "bought from among mankind as a first fruits" to form the heavenly congregation of 144,000, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins (removal of the effects of being an offspring of Adam) - such other recipients of the ransom (Acts 24:15) benefits are earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "Eternal Father" (Christ versus Adam) they attain everlasting life. (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 21:2-4, 9 10; 22:17; compare Psalm 103: 2-5)
The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing underserved kindness and forgiving sins. Rom. 3:21-26.
In short -
Jesus saves from death.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The Mystery Detail of the Tahash
From The Book of Numbers Blog - "The mystery detail: The most precious objects were wrapped up in dolphin skin. Two questions: 1) They were in the desert—where did they get dolphin skin? 2) Why wrap in dolphin skin, which is famously delicate?"
_____________________________________________________
Case in point - they [Hebrew] did not originate "in the desert", they came from Goshen (there has been a long debate over the precise location of the Egyptian Goshen – though it is often agreed to that it lies in the eastern part of the Nile Delta; perhaps Wadi Tumilat). – if you recall your own posts regarding Genesis and Exodus).
It does not seem a large leap of speculation to assume the Hebrew left with supplies and possessions - hides and skins would certainly be on the top ten list at that time. What you are reading as "dolphin" in the Tanakh is the Hebrew word tahash - which is unfortunately rendered as "badger" in the very inept King James Version (KJV babies have further wandered into "goat", "leather", "porpoise", and even "seal").
Except in Numbers 4:25 and Ezekiel 16:10, tahash is always governed by "or" (ot) which is "skins", and is therefore doubtless the name of an animal of some sorts. In Ezekiel 16:10, it is used in reference to the coverings of a woman's sandals – while its other occurrences all refer to the skins used in covering the tabernacle and its accessories.
As far as I know, the "badger" is rarely, if ever seen meandering through Sinai or Goshen even. Though "goat" is not impossible, it, like "badger" lacks cognate language support.Your TNK presents "dolphin" likely because (i) it is similar to a
Unlike its cousin the bottle-nosed dolphin, the dugong's skin is very thick and durable. The skin of the dugong is still used to this day by Sinai Bedouin to
If the dugong skin is tough enough to wear on your feet, rest assured Plotz, it is adequate as a covering for the tabernacle and its accessories.
.
As far as I know, the "badger" is rarely, if ever seen meandering through Sinai or Goshen even. Though "goat" is not impossible, it, like "badger" lacks cognate language support.Your TNK presents "dolphin" likely because (i) it is similar to a
Unlike its cousin the bottle-nosed dolphin, the dugong's skin is very thick and durable. The skin of the dugong is still used to this day by Sinai Bedouin to
If the dugong skin is tough enough to wear on your feet, rest assured Plotz, it is adequate as a covering for the tabernacle and its accessories.
.
Mystery solved ...
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Save Me or Remember Me
At Luke 23:42 one reads the words spoken by a criminal – one of two criminals who were hung along with Jesus – one on each side of him. Following a noble public declaration of his own guilt and a standing up in defense of the innocence of Jesus, this one criminal spoke the last words that we are made aware of being simply, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (NIV).
For this particular post, I am not concerned with Jesus response – though for added emphasis of the point I wish to make, it is worth noting that this portion of Luke is often called on to demonstrate the ultimate mercy and forgiveness offered by God through his son. In fact, in nearly all discussions of this verse, it is Jesus response to the thief’s which is the subject of discussion; often serving as a classic example of “forgiveness of sin”, or more commonly the position of many in Christendom that perhaps wish to support that it is faith alone which “saves” - not works (certainly not a Biblical concept, but better a later discussion).
All worthy subjects for discussion for sure – forgiveness, salvation, faith, works, but:
But the criminal never asked for forgiveness of his sin from Jesus. No, what he requested was of Jesus was to “Remember” him; he did not request “Forgive me …”; nor “Do not forget to forgive me …”; not even the standard. “Jesus please come into my heart and save me …”. None of these was said or implied. His words were quite literal and eloquently simple … “Remember me …”
These two simple words spoken and the cultural meaning behind them are all too often covered over by the culture of the Western world rooted so deeply in Greek theology and philosophy. But this thief was not Greek, no, he was Hebrew as Jesus was Hebrew – and it is within this Hebrew culture reflected so well by the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions where the thief’s request is fully comprehended.
Archeology as well as Biblical accounts has sufficiently demonstrated that Jewish burial tombs were customarily built outside of the cities, a major exception being those of the kings. Such tombs outside the cities might be an excavated grave in the ground (taphos) or, as was often the case among the Hebrews, might be a natural cave or rock-cut vault (compare Acts 7:16 and Genesis 23:19, 20). The references to such tombs in the Christian Greek Scriptures would all appear to place them outside of the cities, except reference David’s tomb at Acts 2:29.
The Koine Greek word “taphos” presents the notion of burial (from thapto, to bury) as in Matthew 23:27, while mnemeion (from mnaomai, mimnesko, to remind) is a memorial (or sepulcher as a monument). Related to mnemeion is the word mnema, which has a corresponding meaning referring also to a memorial or record of a thing or dead person. Unlike taphos, these later words reflect a greater idea of permanence than taphos – they are in fact the ancestors of the later Latin word monumentum.
Although it was the custom of the pagan peoples around them to make their tombs as lavish as their circumstances would allow, the early Jewish tombs that have been found are notable for their simplicity. This was because the Jews’ worship allowed no veneration of the dead, and did not foster any ideas of a conscious existence after death in a spiritual world, ideas such as those held by their contemporaries – the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Babylonians. The only belief held by the ancient Hebrew even resembling thoughts of “after-life” were limited to a physical resurrection to earth to a restored Garden of Eden (a paradise) at the appointed time.
In view of the underlying thought of remembrance associated with mnemeion, the use of this word (rather than taphos) at John 5:28 with regard to the resurrection of “all those in the memorial tombs” seems particularly appropriate and contrast sharply with the prevailing ancient Hebrew thought of complete repudiation and effacement from all memory as represented by the fate of those tossed away as trash in the Valley of Geh Hinnom (Gehenna) (Matthew 10:28, 23:33, Mr 9:43).
The importance attached to burial by the Hebrews is indicative of their that they be “remembered”, primarily by YHWH (commonly vocalized in English as Jehovah) in whom they had faith who would set a time limit and remember them, and would not leave them forever in sheol (gravedom) – See Job 14:13, Ps 16:10.
How Jehovah God “remembered” them was of vital importance to the ancient Hebrew (Psalms 25:7, Jer 31:34, Psalms 137:6, Psalms 109:15, Proverbs 10:7, Eccl 9:5, Eccl 1:11, Isaiah 43:25, and so on).
Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, whether one was to be remembered or passed over for remembrance at the appointed time by Jehovah was the direct result of whether one’s name was or was not recorded in Jehovah’s “book or remembrance” – the book he started keeping as first mentioned in Mal 3:16.
Of interest in this regard in Jesus words recorded at John 5:28, “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will here his voice [Jesus – emphasis mine] and come out.”
The Koine Greek word translated as memorial tombs is not the plural of “taphos (grave) or haides (gravedom, the equivalent of Hebrew sheol), nor gehenna (the Valley), - but it is the word mnemeion (remembrance, memorial tomb).
It lays stress on preserving memory of the deceased person. Not those whose memory was “blotted out” in Gehenna because of unforgivable sins but persons remembered by God will be resurrected with the opportunity to live forever (Matthew 10:28, Mark 3:29, Hebrews 10:26, and of course Mal 3:16).
In Acts 24:15 it states “I have hope toward God … that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people, who out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.
Anastasis is the Koine Greek word translated “resurrection”, literally meaning “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The fuller expression “resurrection from the dead” is used repeatedly in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew word is techiyath hammethim, which means “revival of the dead”.
The basic idea of “remembrance” involved in the original Koine Greek words for “tomb” or “memorial”, the cultural significance to the ancient Hebrew of how God would “remember” one, and how one was either recorded into to or erased from God’s book or remembrance, is what influence the words of Thief being executed next to Jesus.
He was asking just as he said, to be “remembered”, not forgotten in sheol (gravedom) – to be resurrected from death at Jehovah’s appointed time. The Hebrew word zakar means more than simply “not to forget”, it means to mark, to recall – first used in Genesis of Noah, later of Abraham, it relates to promises made by God, and acted upon by God to fulfill them, and the appointed time – he recalls.
And now also, maybe Jesus response to him makes a bit more sense as well.
For this particular post, I am not concerned with Jesus response – though for added emphasis of the point I wish to make, it is worth noting that this portion of Luke is often called on to demonstrate the ultimate mercy and forgiveness offered by God through his son. In fact, in nearly all discussions of this verse, it is Jesus response to the thief’s which is the subject of discussion; often serving as a classic example of “forgiveness of sin”, or more commonly the position of many in Christendom that perhaps wish to support that it is faith alone which “saves” - not works (certainly not a Biblical concept, but better a later discussion).
All worthy subjects for discussion for sure – forgiveness, salvation, faith, works, but:
But the criminal never asked for forgiveness of his sin from Jesus. No, what he requested was of Jesus was to “Remember” him; he did not request “Forgive me …”; nor “Do not forget to forgive me …”; not even the standard. “Jesus please come into my heart and save me …”. None of these was said or implied. His words were quite literal and eloquently simple … “Remember me …”
These two simple words spoken and the cultural meaning behind them are all too often covered over by the culture of the Western world rooted so deeply in Greek theology and philosophy. But this thief was not Greek, no, he was Hebrew as Jesus was Hebrew – and it is within this Hebrew culture reflected so well by the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions where the thief’s request is fully comprehended.
Archeology as well as Biblical accounts has sufficiently demonstrated that Jewish burial tombs were customarily built outside of the cities, a major exception being those of the kings. Such tombs outside the cities might be an excavated grave in the ground (taphos) or, as was often the case among the Hebrews, might be a natural cave or rock-cut vault (compare Acts 7:16 and Genesis 23:19, 20). The references to such tombs in the Christian Greek Scriptures would all appear to place them outside of the cities, except reference David’s tomb at Acts 2:29.
The Koine Greek word “taphos” presents the notion of burial (from thapto, to bury) as in Matthew 23:27, while mnemeion (from mnaomai, mimnesko, to remind) is a memorial (or sepulcher as a monument). Related to mnemeion is the word mnema, which has a corresponding meaning referring also to a memorial or record of a thing or dead person. Unlike taphos, these later words reflect a greater idea of permanence than taphos – they are in fact the ancestors of the later Latin word monumentum.
Although it was the custom of the pagan peoples around them to make their tombs as lavish as their circumstances would allow, the early Jewish tombs that have been found are notable for their simplicity. This was because the Jews’ worship allowed no veneration of the dead, and did not foster any ideas of a conscious existence after death in a spiritual world, ideas such as those held by their contemporaries – the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Babylonians. The only belief held by the ancient Hebrew even resembling thoughts of “after-life” were limited to a physical resurrection to earth to a restored Garden of Eden (a paradise) at the appointed time.
In view of the underlying thought of remembrance associated with mnemeion, the use of this word (rather than taphos) at John 5:28 with regard to the resurrection of “all those in the memorial tombs” seems particularly appropriate and contrast sharply with the prevailing ancient Hebrew thought of complete repudiation and effacement from all memory as represented by the fate of those tossed away as trash in the Valley of Geh Hinnom (Gehenna) (Matthew 10:28, 23:33, Mr 9:43).
The importance attached to burial by the Hebrews is indicative of their that they be “remembered”, primarily by YHWH (commonly vocalized in English as Jehovah) in whom they had faith who would set a time limit and remember them, and would not leave them forever in sheol (gravedom) – See Job 14:13, Ps 16:10.
How Jehovah God “remembered” them was of vital importance to the ancient Hebrew (Psalms 25:7, Jer 31:34, Psalms 137:6, Psalms 109:15, Proverbs 10:7, Eccl 9:5, Eccl 1:11, Isaiah 43:25, and so on).
Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, whether one was to be remembered or passed over for remembrance at the appointed time by Jehovah was the direct result of whether one’s name was or was not recorded in Jehovah’s “book or remembrance” – the book he started keeping as first mentioned in Mal 3:16.
Of interest in this regard in Jesus words recorded at John 5:28, “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will here his voice [Jesus – emphasis mine] and come out.”
The Koine Greek word translated as memorial tombs is not the plural of “taphos (grave) or haides (gravedom, the equivalent of Hebrew sheol), nor gehenna (the Valley), - but it is the word mnemeion (remembrance, memorial tomb).
It lays stress on preserving memory of the deceased person. Not those whose memory was “blotted out” in Gehenna because of unforgivable sins but persons remembered by God will be resurrected with the opportunity to live forever (Matthew 10:28, Mark 3:29, Hebrews 10:26, and of course Mal 3:16).
In Acts 24:15 it states “I have hope toward God … that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people, who out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.
Anastasis is the Koine Greek word translated “resurrection”, literally meaning “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The fuller expression “resurrection from the dead” is used repeatedly in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew word is techiyath hammethim, which means “revival of the dead”.
The basic idea of “remembrance” involved in the original Koine Greek words for “tomb” or “memorial”, the cultural significance to the ancient Hebrew of how God would “remember” one, and how one was either recorded into to or erased from God’s book or remembrance, is what influence the words of Thief being executed next to Jesus.
He was asking just as he said, to be “remembered”, not forgotten in sheol (gravedom) – to be resurrected from death at Jehovah’s appointed time. The Hebrew word zakar means more than simply “not to forget”, it means to mark, to recall – first used in Genesis of Noah, later of Abraham, it relates to promises made by God, and acted upon by God to fulfill them, and the appointed time – he recalls.
And now also, maybe Jesus response to him makes a bit more sense as well.
The Phrase "Jehovah God"
An examination of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 alone show that the phrase "Jehovah God" is in fact used over 20 times (understanding that "Jehovah" is the common English vocalization for YHWH (the tetragrammaton). The first occurrence of the phrase appears in Genesis 2:4 as follows:
אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים
יהוה is YHWH
עשות is Elohim
(remember, Hebrew is read right to left)
Various translations read -
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – ASV
"These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens" – Darby
"This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens" – WEB
"These 'are' births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens" – Young's Literal
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" – KJV
(If you recall, the KJV replaces every occurrence of "יהוה" or the common English vocalization "Jehovah" with "LORD" to hide the name.)
"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – NWT
In Chapters 2 and 3 alone, this exact phrase does exist in the original language (20 times), and is rendered so in many translations.
Command and Directive
Is there a difference in concept between a command and a directive? Perhaps to us English speaking person there is, albeit quite subtle. We often use the words interchangeably; after all, how much difference is there in commanding your children to be inside the home prior to sunset, or directing them of the same.
But inside the word directive, is direct – which we also recognize within direction. Now direction, and command, have a wider gap in meaning to us than does directive and command.
Everyone is familiar with the word command; we often see the word commandment used quite often; especially we are most familiar with its use to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah into English - but it really does not wholly convey the underlying concrete meaning of mits'vah.
The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood in English as a directive. To grasp better the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, “tsiyon” – its concrete meaning being that of a desert or a landmark.
The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who wandered the deserts searching for pastures to feed and care for their flocks.
Nomads were quite accustomed to using the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, stars, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible were not commands, or rules and regulations, to the Hebrew (as we might understand that today). The Hebrew understanding of mits’vah went much deeper - and often more personal.
They were directives - or landmarks that one looked for guidance in order that one should not veer from the path provided; turning neither to the right, or to the left (Deuteronomy 5:32, 28:14, Joshua 1:7, Proverbs 4:27, Isaiah 30:21).
Interestingly, the word “tsiyon” meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the very landmark.
But inside the word directive, is direct – which we also recognize within direction. Now direction, and command, have a wider gap in meaning to us than does directive and command.
Everyone is familiar with the word command; we often see the word commandment used quite often; especially we are most familiar with its use to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah into English - but it really does not wholly convey the underlying concrete meaning of mits'vah.
The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood in English as a directive. To grasp better the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, “tsiyon” – its concrete meaning being that of a desert or a landmark.
The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who wandered the deserts searching for pastures to feed and care for their flocks.
Nomads were quite accustomed to using the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, stars, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible were not commands, or rules and regulations, to the Hebrew (as we might understand that today). The Hebrew understanding of mits’vah went much deeper - and often more personal.
They were directives - or landmarks that one looked for guidance in order that one should not veer from the path provided; turning neither to the right, or to the left (Deuteronomy 5:32, 28:14, Joshua 1:7, Proverbs 4:27, Isaiah 30:21).
Interestingly, the word “tsiyon” meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the very landmark.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
hele ben shachar Part I
The rendering "Lucifer" (AV,Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer comes from a root meaning "to shine" and is a descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon." Isa. 14:4,12
This shining one is represented as saying in his heart: "Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting." (Isa. 14:13)
Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the mountain of meeting." Since stars can refer to kings (Numbers 24:17; Rev. 22:16), the stars of God must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion.
In fact the metaphor of a star is specifically used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by the conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. They did therefore, shine brightly in the ancient world and could be termed "shining one" (Lucifer)
The king of Babylon (or, the dynasty of Babylonian kings) indicated his ambition to lift up his throne above the stars of God by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally dethroning them.
Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph's dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his eleven brothers by eleven stars.(Gen. 37:9,10)
Job 38:7 parallels the morning stars that joyfully cried out at earth's founding with the angelic sons of God.
The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as the bright morning star and promised to give the morning star to his conquering followers, this evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Rev. 22:16; 2:26,28; compare 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6)
The seven angels of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Rev. 1:16,20; 2:1; 3:1)
The angel of the abyss called Abaddon is also represented by a star. Rev. 9:1,11
Literally, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן־שׁחר), light bearer (or shining one), son of the dawn, to refer to the fall of the Babylonian king.
Strong, Briggs, Robinson, and others tell us that the term, הילל, helel, can be translated "shining one".
The King James Version renders vs. 12 as follows: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations."
In spite of this rendering, the proper name "Lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew "Lucifer, son of the morning" is helel ben shachar. It could be translated "Shining one, son of the dawn." It is NOT a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.
In the fourth century C.E., Jerome (340 AD – 419 AD) had risen to prominence within the Roman Catholic Church and began work on a Latin translation of the Bible. After 20 years the translation known as the Vulgate was completed (405 C.E.)
Church historian Schaff says of the Vulgate: "From the present stage of biblical philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing, in particulars…"
When he (Jerome) translated Isaiah 14:12, he did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, neither did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros. He instead translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, which by Jerome's time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan.
Many think that Jerome's selection of words may have been influenced by the theology of the earlier Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen, who had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon.
Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, offers some insightful background, "The history of the origin of a being called Lucifer is interesting. The word Lucifer comes from the Latin verb, luceo, lucere, luxi, which means to shine, to glow, glitter, to be clear. It is light, day dawning. The adjective, lucidus-a-um, means shining, bright, clear, lucid. The noun, lucifer-eri, means the morning star, the planet Venus, or a day. It comes from the adjective lucifer-era-erum, shiny."
The Bible includes no character named Lucifer. Isaiah had never heard of such a being. Nor had the apostles of Jesus' day. Lucifer, as a manifestation of the devil, is a later invention. We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name "Lucifer" does not find its way into a translation until Jerome's time, some 150 years later.
Dr. Watts summarizes, "The apparent reflection of a 'Lucifer myth' in v. 12 is just that. It is a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant." We learn nothing of the origins of Satan from this story.
This shining one is represented as saying in his heart: "Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting." (Isa. 14:13)
Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the mountain of meeting." Since stars can refer to kings (Numbers 24:17; Rev. 22:16), the stars of God must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion.
In fact the metaphor of a star is specifically used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by the conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. They did therefore, shine brightly in the ancient world and could be termed "shining one" (Lucifer)
The king of Babylon (or, the dynasty of Babylonian kings) indicated his ambition to lift up his throne above the stars of God by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally dethroning them.
Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph's dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his eleven brothers by eleven stars.(Gen. 37:9,10)
Job 38:7 parallels the morning stars that joyfully cried out at earth's founding with the angelic sons of God.
The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as the bright morning star and promised to give the morning star to his conquering followers, this evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Rev. 22:16; 2:26,28; compare 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6)
The seven angels of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Rev. 1:16,20; 2:1; 3:1)
The angel of the abyss called Abaddon is also represented by a star. Rev. 9:1,11
Literally, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן־שׁחר), light bearer (or shining one), son of the dawn, to refer to the fall of the Babylonian king.
Strong, Briggs, Robinson, and others tell us that the term, הילל, helel, can be translated "shining one".
The King James Version renders vs. 12 as follows: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations."
In spite of this rendering, the proper name "Lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew "Lucifer, son of the morning" is helel ben shachar. It could be translated "Shining one, son of the dawn." It is NOT a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.
In the fourth century C.E., Jerome (340 AD – 419 AD) had risen to prominence within the Roman Catholic Church and began work on a Latin translation of the Bible. After 20 years the translation known as the Vulgate was completed (405 C.E.)
Church historian Schaff says of the Vulgate: "From the present stage of biblical philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing, in particulars…"
When he (Jerome) translated Isaiah 14:12, he did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, neither did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros. He instead translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, which by Jerome's time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan.
Many think that Jerome's selection of words may have been influenced by the theology of the earlier Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen, who had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon.
Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, offers some insightful background, "The history of the origin of a being called Lucifer is interesting. The word Lucifer comes from the Latin verb, luceo, lucere, luxi, which means to shine, to glow, glitter, to be clear. It is light, day dawning. The adjective, lucidus-a-um, means shining, bright, clear, lucid. The noun, lucifer-eri, means the morning star, the planet Venus, or a day. It comes from the adjective lucifer-era-erum, shiny."
The Bible includes no character named Lucifer. Isaiah had never heard of such a being. Nor had the apostles of Jesus' day. Lucifer, as a manifestation of the devil, is a later invention. We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name "Lucifer" does not find its way into a translation until Jerome's time, some 150 years later.
Dr. Watts summarizes, "The apparent reflection of a 'Lucifer myth' in v. 12 is just that. It is a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant." We learn nothing of the origins of Satan from this story.
helel ben shachar - Part II
Question:
"Do you think that the "Shining One, Son of the Morning" may be a reference to the Morning Star (i.e. Venus as it appears in the morning sky)? Or do you think there is another significance (though I doubt that the Afroasiatic peoples with the exception of the Egyptians made much use of helical rising stars in time-keeping measurements)?
If it is a reference to the Morning Star, then the translation of Lucifer is quite apt. If it is a reference to another astronolical phenominon, then it is not."
Response:
If I had a nickel for every individual (scholar and layman) who have attempted association of the Hebrew "helel" to various Canaanite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, and other ancient near east astral myths – I would have been able to retire decades ago in the south of France. There is an entire section within the CUL dedicated to the various thesis, studies, and papers issued in this regard – the majority of course peaking between the 15th and 17th centuries before interest was quashed as Jerome's erroneous theological blunder became quite apparent.
The Hebrew word "helel" is not a proper name, but is rather an epithet. Assigning "Lucifer", or "Bob", or "Mary", or any other proper name to helel is a wide divergence from Hebrew grammar, and simply cannot be supported in the underlying text, nor context. That is problem number one. A larger problem has to do with the fact that "helel ben-shachar" is a "hapax legomenon", appearing only once in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.
Many sources (such as Herder and Gunkel, McKay, Pritchard, Winckler, Day, et al ) are often drawn upon to argue that the Hebrew phrase rendered helel ben shachar is the product of myth, or at least similar in reference to other mystical accounts. These sources reference the astral myths, the mythology from various ancient near east cultures, and alleged mythological phrases that supposedly parallel Isaiah 14:12. The greater majority of these theses dried-up long before the end of the 18th century as more information regarding B-Hebrew became known and available.
You propose the "comparison to Venus" endeavors.
As many have claimed an association with Venus, so have they claimed association with Jupiter, Marduk, Enlil, Arabic (Sahr – the moon god), Hil (Ugaritic god), Nergal, Shahar, even Halley's comet.
As many have proposed the association with astral myth, twice have adequately shown all the approaches problematic for numerous reasons.
An examination of the various existing myths from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Chaldean, Canaanite, Greek, and Ugaritic et al regions (yes, and even the Nordic) and cultures has demonstrated that any similarities between these myths and the Helel account are typically outweighed by vast differences. In those situations when a cited myth seems to be on point, a careful investigation demonstrates that the historicity of such a myth is in doubt. In essence, there is an absence of any single myth reflecting the totality of the context presented in Isaiah 14:12. This absence of association has been recognized by a number of scholars (my favorite in this regard is Chisholm).
Despite enormous interest in this aspect of Isaiah and innumerable attempts, nobody has yet been able to reconstruct a convincing mythological torso or to determine its precise origin. No known literature matches the details provided in Isaiah, nor has Isaiah been shown to have depended on any mythical source.
It is most probable however, that the prophet simply drew upon existing Hebrew culture and prior biblical material rather than from the mythology of the surrounding culture (compare Job 38:32 and the known Mazzaroth and Ash constellations, and the association with established earthly authority or rulership). The context alone in Isaiah is fairly convincing that it is a Babylonian ruler who is being addressed (and most convincingly, the associated whole of Babylonian rulership/political system).
Rendering "Lucifer" or any other proper name to Isaiah 14:12 is not supported by the Hebrew text and grammatical construct. There is simply nothing with the context of Isaiah 14, or within the entire Hebrew Scriptures, to presume an association to Venus (McKay), as the "morning star". The rendering therefore, and implied association with Lucifer of other origin, is somewhat impotent. There is however, strong evidence that such refers to titles often assigned to themselves by Babylonian Kings (Sayce touches on this, as well as the more contemporary Joan Oates in her and her husbands latest revision of Babylon – just a few suggestions if you are looking for more info).
Does this mean you personally cannot ascribe a higher mystical association with certain Hebrew biblical accounts and other cultural antiquity accounts and literature? Nah. People have been doing such for eons, and I suspect as long as people are more excited about a perceived mystical explanation hidden in the kosmos, the section in the CUL will certainly grow larger over time.
"Do you think that the "Shining One, Son of the Morning" may be a reference to the Morning Star (i.e. Venus as it appears in the morning sky)? Or do you think there is another significance (though I doubt that the Afroasiatic peoples with the exception of the Egyptians made much use of helical rising stars in time-keeping measurements)?
If it is a reference to the Morning Star, then the translation of Lucifer is quite apt. If it is a reference to another astronolical phenominon, then it is not."
Response:
If I had a nickel for every individual (scholar and layman) who have attempted association of the Hebrew "helel" to various Canaanite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, and other ancient near east astral myths – I would have been able to retire decades ago in the south of France. There is an entire section within the CUL dedicated to the various thesis, studies, and papers issued in this regard – the majority of course peaking between the 15th and 17th centuries before interest was quashed as Jerome's erroneous theological blunder became quite apparent.
The Hebrew word "helel" is not a proper name, but is rather an epithet. Assigning "Lucifer", or "Bob", or "Mary", or any other proper name to helel is a wide divergence from Hebrew grammar, and simply cannot be supported in the underlying text, nor context. That is problem number one. A larger problem has to do with the fact that "helel ben-shachar" is a "hapax legomenon", appearing only once in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.
Many sources (such as Herder and Gunkel, McKay, Pritchard, Winckler, Day, et al ) are often drawn upon to argue that the Hebrew phrase rendered helel ben shachar is the product of myth, or at least similar in reference to other mystical accounts. These sources reference the astral myths, the mythology from various ancient near east cultures, and alleged mythological phrases that supposedly parallel Isaiah 14:12. The greater majority of these theses dried-up long before the end of the 18th century as more information regarding B-Hebrew became known and available.
You propose the "comparison to Venus" endeavors.
As many have claimed an association with Venus, so have they claimed association with Jupiter, Marduk, Enlil, Arabic (Sahr – the moon god), Hil (Ugaritic god), Nergal, Shahar, even Halley's comet.
As many have proposed the association with astral myth, twice have adequately shown all the approaches problematic for numerous reasons.
An examination of the various existing myths from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Chaldean, Canaanite, Greek, and Ugaritic et al regions (yes, and even the Nordic) and cultures has demonstrated that any similarities between these myths and the Helel account are typically outweighed by vast differences. In those situations when a cited myth seems to be on point, a careful investigation demonstrates that the historicity of such a myth is in doubt. In essence, there is an absence of any single myth reflecting the totality of the context presented in Isaiah 14:12. This absence of association has been recognized by a number of scholars (my favorite in this regard is Chisholm).
Despite enormous interest in this aspect of Isaiah and innumerable attempts, nobody has yet been able to reconstruct a convincing mythological torso or to determine its precise origin. No known literature matches the details provided in Isaiah, nor has Isaiah been shown to have depended on any mythical source.
It is most probable however, that the prophet simply drew upon existing Hebrew culture and prior biblical material rather than from the mythology of the surrounding culture (compare Job 38:32 and the known Mazzaroth and Ash constellations, and the association with established earthly authority or rulership). The context alone in Isaiah is fairly convincing that it is a Babylonian ruler who is being addressed (and most convincingly, the associated whole of Babylonian rulership/political system).
Rendering "Lucifer" or any other proper name to Isaiah 14:12 is not supported by the Hebrew text and grammatical construct. There is simply nothing with the context of Isaiah 14, or within the entire Hebrew Scriptures, to presume an association to Venus (McKay), as the "morning star". The rendering therefore, and implied association with Lucifer of other origin, is somewhat impotent. There is however, strong evidence that such refers to titles often assigned to themselves by Babylonian Kings (Sayce touches on this, as well as the more contemporary Joan Oates in her and her husbands latest revision of Babylon – just a few suggestions if you are looking for more info).
Does this mean you personally cannot ascribe a higher mystical association with certain Hebrew biblical accounts and other cultural antiquity accounts and literature? Nah. People have been doing such for eons, and I suspect as long as people are more excited about a perceived mystical explanation hidden in the kosmos, the section in the CUL will certainly grow larger over time.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
What's in a Name?
A little background on the word - you know that it comes from the verb hawah, meaning to become or exists. In Hebrew thought, that which exists has breath, and the breath was the character of someone. Hawah comes from the primary root, hah, or heh [HH] – which if you open your mouth wide and blow the air from your lungs, you will have pronounced this ancient root word. There are many derivatives which come from HH – hawah [to become or exist]; hayah [to breath, was, come to pass]; chayah [live, life, exist]; neshamah [to blow, or wind from the lungs]; yihyeh [he exists] and so on. HH in the paleo is made up of two “hey”, and the pictograph letter for hey, was the little man, standing with his arms raised out, which singularly, means to “behold” as when looking at a great sight [one might throw their arms up or out in amazement or wonderment], and when beholding a great sight, one often takes in a deep breath, or even “sigh”, with the extended meaning then of “reveal” as well – with the two hey, you have both – a great sight or wonderment itself being the very revealing of life’s breath.
The Waw was the picture of the tent peg, meaning just that, a peg or hook, used to secure something, fixed it in place, even “add” – as the waw is often used and a prefix to words to mean “and” in the sense of adding things together, or bringing together.
The Yad was the side-view of the arm and hand meaning to work, make, throw – all the functions of the hand and arm working together. The Modern Hebrew name “yud” is a derivative of the two letter word “yad” meaning "hand", the original name for the letter. or secure.
The word, yhwh, from a literal academic perspective means “he exists” or as in Genesis 15:6, “b’yhwh“ meaning the “fully existent one”
Yhwh is derived from the root Hh [see above] by placing the Yad in the beginning, or in front of the Hh, and is completed by inserting the waw between the Hh.
By his very own action, his own hand’s work [yad], he is the one to which all life’s breath, wonderment, and revelation [hey hey] are secured and brought together [waw]. He is the very cause and securing factor, of all that exists – that which we call the wonderment or revelation of life through every breath we take.
The Waw was the picture of the tent peg, meaning just that, a peg or hook, used to secure something, fixed it in place, even “add” – as the waw is often used and a prefix to words to mean “and” in the sense of adding things together, or bringing together.
The Yad was the side-view of the arm and hand meaning to work, make, throw – all the functions of the hand and arm working together. The Modern Hebrew name “yud” is a derivative of the two letter word “yad” meaning "hand", the original name for the letter. or secure.
The word, yhwh, from a literal academic perspective means “he exists” or as in Genesis 15:6, “b’yhwh“ meaning the “fully existent one”
Yhwh is derived from the root Hh [see above] by placing the Yad in the beginning, or in front of the Hh, and is completed by inserting the waw between the Hh.
By his very own action, his own hand’s work [yad], he is the one to which all life’s breath, wonderment, and revelation [hey hey] are secured and brought together [waw]. He is the very cause and securing factor, of all that exists – that which we call the wonderment or revelation of life through every breath we take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
