Several years ago, I acquired a book entitled Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. One of its two authors, Dr. David Bivin, resides in Israel and is one of the founders of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, a think tank in which Jewish and Christian scholars strive for a better understanding of the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.  I had been an avid reader of Dr. Bivin’s teachings online.

In picking up the book, I learned a couple of things about Dr. Bivin I didn’t previously know. For one, he moved to Jerusalem in 1963 and actually served as a reservist in the Israeli military for 17 years. Yet, the most interesting thing I learned about him was his experience as a teenager reading the Bible. “My greatest difficulty,” he said, “was trying to understand the words of Jesus.” He would encounter passages such as these: “For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31) “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12) As a youth, he would ask his pastor or seminary professors to interpret these passages. Here was their common response: “Just keep reading, son, the Bible will interpret itself.”

Does that answer sound familiar? I’ve encountered it in my own church experience. There are many people with autism in this world who can decipher words on a page, but lack even the remotest sense of what they mean. No matter how much they read, they don’t comprehend. Eventually, they shy away from reading altogether. Though he was not autistic, Bivin’s struggles with the words of Jesus caused him to drift from reading the Gospels: “By the time I went to Israel at the age of 24 to study at Hebrew University, I had almost stopped reading the Gospels. It wasn’t that I wasn’t reading the Bible. I was reading the Bible more than ever before, but I was unconsciously neglecting the Gospels; yet, here were the real words and teachings of Jesus.” Though he would one day take his place among the most respected of Bible scholars, the young Bivin did not find the answer, “just keep reading,” to be satisfying. No matter how much of the Scripture he read—and he read it all repeatedly—the meaning of Jesus’ words was often still unclear. He wrote: “The truth is that one can keep reading the Bible forever, and the Bible will not tell him the meaning of these difficult passages.” Despite that outlook, he kept striving to understand—for the words of God are too precious and important to simply disregard or to push away in the hope of some future understanding. If we want to be intimate with Jesus, we need to understand his words.

In 1969, Bivin joined the Narkis Street Congregation in Jerusalem whose pastor was another American scholar, Dr. Robert Lindsey. Dr. Lindsey had his own brush with the difficult words of Jesus. He was at one time attempting to translate the Greek text of Mark to Hebrew. As he did this, he noticed that the order or sentence construction (syntax) of the words in Greek—often sounding very odd in Greek itself—made perfect sense when translated in the same word sequence into Hebrew. It was almost as if someone in antiquity had placed the Greek words together from a Hebrew source. He recalled that in his own training, he had a similar experience trying to translate the classical Greek books of Homer and Plato into English. “What difficulty I had in making those ancient Greeks speak English!” he said.

One day, Lindsey was teaching a class on the Gospels when he encountered the Greek word ochloi, which when translated into English often is expressed as “crowds” or “multitudes.” This word appears in the New Testament 28 times, 25 of which are found in the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. For instance, in Matthew 9:8, having seen Jesus heal a paralytic, the Greek text reads hoi ochloi ephobethesan—which when brought over literally into English would read—“the multitudes marveled.” The English of this verse is awkward, even tortured—you can have a multitude of people in one place, but not multitudes. In fact, multitudes renders to the word multitude in most English dictionaries. The use of ochloi—a plural in Greek—puzzled Lindsey. He mentioned this in a lecture. A young, Israeli woman in his classroom piped up that ochloi sounded to her very much like the Hebrew word, ochlosim, itself a plural, but also a Hebrew idiom used by the ancient rabbis of Jesus’ day to depict “the people of a locality.” Could it be that the Greek of Matthew borrowed an idiomatic Hebrew term? Lindsey thought yes.

Both Lindsey and his disciple, Bivin, were students of the Hebrew language, and as they read the Greek words of the Gospels, they began to detect a Hebrew “voice”—a Hebrew “undertext”—speaking to them. To these scholars, translating the Greek Gospels into Hebrew clarified many of the “difficult words” of Jesus that had at one time bewildered them.

The existence of a Hebrew undertext in the Gospels presupposes that Hebrew was widely spoken, or even the dominant language of 1st Century Judea. That presupposition collides with a strongly-held hypothesis in Christian scholarship that Aramaic, not Hebrew, was the language of the common man in that period. Aramaic, like Hebrew, was a Semitic language, commonly understood to have been introduced in various dialects to the people of Israel and Judea by the Assyrians and Babylonians who conquered them. By the 1st century, Judea was home to a mix of several tongues: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and to a lesser extent, Latin. Based on what we discern from the Gospels, it’s likely that Jesus was familiar with all of them. There is no serious scholarship that contends that either Greek or Latin was the primary language of Judea. Of the remaining tongues: which language was dominant—Hebrew or Aramaic?

Bivin and his co-author, Dr. Roy Blizzard, provide abundant evidence. There are 12 different Aramaic words/phrases in the New Testament compared to at least 17 Hebrew words/phrases, one of which, amen, appears over 100 times. In 1947, the year of Israel’s rebirth as a country, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in twelve caves near the site of Wadi Qumran in what is known as the West Bank today. Included among the findings were 179 manuscripts, some very fragmentary, of every Old Testament book except Esther. The vast majority were written in Hebrew. Also found were 10 non-Biblical texts specific to Qumran itself—a community that was wiped out by the Romans in 68 A.D. One was in Aramaic whereas the other nine were in Hebrew. 30% of the findings were commentaries on the Bible known as pesharim—all of these were in Hebrew. The importance of the pesharim is that they were the texts used to educate the Israeli population—ancient schools in Israel did not have the Greek structure of language, mathematics and the sciences—they were instead primarily focused on the Scriptures as the subject of learning. Therefore, the common man would need to be able to read the pesharim in order to gain an education.

Archeologically speaking, coins and inscriptions point to the prevalent use of Hebrew in 1st-Century Israel. Of the 215 types of coins minted in and around the time of Jesus, 99 are inscribed in Hebrew compared to just one in Aramaic. The rest were largely in Greek, owing to rule of the Roman puppet, Herod. During periods of Jewish independence—the Great Revolt of 66-70 A.D., and the Bar-Kochba Revolt of 132-135 A.D., a total of 68 different coins were minted, all inscribed in Hebrew. In terms of inscriptions, excavations beginning in 1968 at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem have yielded numerous inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but not a single one in Aramaic. Excavations conducted at Masada between 1963 and 1965 unearthed over 700 pottery fragments with inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.

We could go on and on supporting the preponderance of Hebrew over Aramaic in the remarks of Josephus, the Jewish historian, as well as rabbinic literature, rabbinic parables and Jewish prayer, all of which have a time reference that crosses over the 1st Century A.D. and all of which is amply documented by Bivin and Blizzard in their book. Importantly, they cite the testimony of the early Church fathers to the use of Hebrew in the time of Jesus, specifically with respect to the composition of the Gospel of Matthew.

“Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could.”—Papias, mid-2nd Century A.D.

“Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”—Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.)

“The first [gospel], composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew. . .for those who came to faith from Judaism”—Origen, (first quarter of the third century)

These quotes were recorded by Eusebius, a Roman historian, in his book Ecclesiastical History. who would later become the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in 314 A.D. He made his own comment below:

“Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his gospel in writing in his native language.”

Among the later Church fathers (post-Nicean from 325 A.D.), we have the following:

“They have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them as it was originally written, in Hebrew script.”—Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies.

“Matthew was the first in Judea to compose the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. . .Who it was that later translated it into Greek is no longer known with certainty. Furthermore, the Hebrew text itself is still preserved in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus assembled with great care.”—Jerome, De Viris Inlustribus 3

Let’s now quickly identify a couple of “Hebraisms” in the Gospels as covered in Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. Bivin and Blizzard look at the Parable of the Prodigal Son—particularly honing in on the statements of the father character—detecting the repetitive use of the word “and” (Greek: kai):

“And the father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. . .And the father said to his servants ‘bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet, and bring the fattened calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry.” (Luke 15:20, 22, 23)

According to the authors, joining clauses together with the conjunction “and” is very strange Greek, but very good Hebrew. We see this pattern in Genesis 1:2-5:

“And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness. And God called the light Day. And He called the darkness Night. And there was evening, and there was morning—first day.”

It’s important that we learn as readers of the New Testament to identify the underlying Hebrew in the text. But, you ask, does it really matter insofar as our understanding of the text is concerned? The answer is a resounding yes! There are many examples in which discerning the Hebrew “undertext” has a bearing on the meaning we derive from the verse. One quick example cited by Bivin and Blizzard is found in Luke 10:9: “Heal the sick who are there and tell them ‘The Kingdom of God has come near you.’” (King James version) The phrase “has come near” is the Greek word enkigen. In English, as well as in Greek, “coming near” means that something is not yet here. Is that what we’re to understand about the Kingdom of God?

What, however, does “coming near” mean in Hebrew? The word for “come near” in Hebrew is karav. Bivin and Blizzard reference the Book of 2nd Kings which recounts an incident in which King Ahaz of Judah instructed the priest Uriah to construct an altar according to a design the king had seen in Damascus. Uriah complied and in Chapter 16, Verse 12 we read: “And when the king came from Damascus the king viewed the altar. Then the king drew near (karav) to the altar, and went up on it.” The king wasn’t merely “near” the altar, he was on it! That’s as near as it gets! The authors also reference Deuteronomy 22:13-14 which provides instructions for testing a wife’s virginity: “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then despises her, and brings false charges against her and maligns her, saying ‘I have taken this woman, and when I came near (karav) her, I did not find her a virgin, then. . .” In this case, “coming near”, that is, karav, is a Hebrew idiom for sexual relations. So, too, is it in Isaiah 8:3 in which we are told the prophet “came near (karav) the prophetess [who was his wife] and she conceived and bore a son.” When Jesus said that the Kingdom of God had “come near”, he was talking about something that had already arrived and that we were in intimate contact with. When we wish to be intimate with God, it first helps to know that He is telling us that He is already intimate with us.

This word study centers on the term, serve, which in Greek, is the word diakoneo (dee-ak-on-eh’-o).  We find this word 37 times in the New Testament text, 4 times in the Book of Mark, including being found in a discourse spanning chapter 10, verses 35-45, and 5 times in the Book of Matthew, including a parallel, albeit slightly truncated, account of the same events in Chapter 20, verses 20-28,  both versions of which conclude with Jesus saying: “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45)

The word, diakoneo, is the verb form of the noun, diakonos, translated as “servant.” In the Matthew account, we find this word in verse 26: “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant (diakonos).” Diakonos is the combination of two words, dia meaning “thoroughly” and konis meaning dust. The imagery provided here is of a person who “thoroughly” raises up dust in the performance of a task, running to do an errand with dust rising from his feet, in short, “kicking up dust.” It is the Greek origin of the English word, deacon, a person who ministers to others. In Matthew 25, Jesus foretells his second coming, at which time people will be “separated” as one separates “sheep” and “goats”. Those referred to as “goats” protest against Jesus’ accusation that they did not “care” for him: “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?” (Matt. 25:44) The word translated as “help” in the NIV translation is diakoneo, translated as “minister” in the KJV.

The world in which Jesus walked was dominated by the authoritarian presence of Rome. The Roman Empire was a class-based, hierarchical society with a slave-dependent economy. At the upper end of the class structure were two classes, the senatorial (nobles–position based on ancestry) and equestrian (position based on wealth). At the bottom were slaves–persons considered property under Roman Law with no legal standing, and in its purest iteration, no rights, no personhood. They could be abused, forced to work under horrific conditions, or even executed, at will. In between these extremes, though by no means the semblance of a middle class, were “plebs”–freeborn Roman citizens. The Apostle Paul counted himself in this group (Acts 22:25). They often performed the same work as slaves–as craftsmen, artisans, household servants–and though they had rights under Roman Law, they had very limited upward mobility. This entire class structure was upheld by a system of patronage. A patron (patronus) entered into a relationship with a client (cliente) whereby both had mutual obligations to the other. A patron would confer rights and privileges (fides–trust, reliability) to his client, and in return, receive pietas (dutiful devotion). In the final analysis, the favoritism of patronage–the patronus favored his cliente and in turn received favored treatment from the cliente–was all about maintaining the stability of the class structure–those at the top would remain at the top, the “first would remain first,” so to speak. Slaves, of course, were at the bottom of the Roman societal order and Roman Law authorized that, with some exceptions, they would stay there. The bottom would stay at the bottom, the last would remain last. This was, in very broad strokes, the order of things in the Roman Empire.

The Hebrew word for servant is ebed. It derives from the word abad, meaning work or serve. In Hebraic culture, work was both a duty and something to be esteemed and loved–in Rabbinical literature, there is a dictum: “Love work, for Adam did not taste food until he had done work.” Genesis 2:15 states: The LORD God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to work (abad) it and keep it” whereupon he immediately instructed him “of every tree of the Garden you may eat”. (v. 16) Work, therefore, was embedded in God’s “order of things” for mankind from the beginning. Whereas work in its various forms was identified in Roman society with pre-existing class divisions, Hebrew culture embraced work as a great equalizer between men, bonding them together for the common good and the worship of God. In Rabbinical literature we find the following statement: “I am a creature of God and my neighbor is also His creature; my work is in the city and his in the field; I rise early to my work and he rises early to his. As he cannot excel in my work, so I cannot excel in his work. But perhaps you say, I do great things and he small things! We have learned that it does not matter whether one does much or little if only he directs his heart to Heaven.” Directing one’s heart to Heaven in conjunction with performing work (abad) reveals much about the “order of things” in Hebraic society. When one submits oneself to the authority of one’s master–in this case, the authority of the LORD God–one takes one’s place in the order of God’s government, regardless of the amount of work performed, the type of work, or one’s civil status. As opposed to the Roman order infested by patronage, God’s governance, His Kingdom, allows for no partiality. The word, ebed, is not only translated as servant, but also as slave, a word that makes no distinction between the two since it was the work done according to the Master’s purpose that counted, not one’s social position. 

Being an ebed simply meant to be under someone else’s authority. As opposed to the cruel hierarchy of Roman rule, an ebed, whether considered servant or slave, had rights accorded to them by the Torah. Whereas the Roman slave was the property of his owner, a Hebrew ebed was temporarily indentured, authorized to be released in the 7th year of his service. (Exodus 21:2, Deut 15:12) They were not to be released “empty handed”–the master was required to supply them with provisions for food and drink (Deut. 15:13). A “slave” had the right to continue his service for life should he so choose. (Deut. 15:16)  A fellow Israelite who became indentured due to poverty was to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident and must not be ruled over with severity. (Lev. 25:43) A foreign slave who escaped was not to be returned to his foreign master and was accorded the right to live wherever they chose all the while protected from mistreatment. (Deut. 23:16) Roman slaves, on the other hand, were hunted down and if captured, returned for a reward. 

The relationship between a Hebrew master and his Hebrew slave was established on the basis of shared humanity. “Did I ever brush aside the case of my servants, man or maid,” said Job, “when they made a complaint against me?. . .Did not He who made me in my mother’s belly make him?” (Job 31: 13, 15) God authorized humane treatment of His people with the reminder that they were once redeemed from slavery in Egypt. (Lev. 25:42; Jeremiah 34:13-14) It is not surprising that in Scripture the rules for treating slaves immediately follows the giving of the Ten Commandments, which in turn, was considered by the Jews to have been given 50 days after their release from bondage in Egypt. In Jewish literature, masters were instructed they were not to eat clean bread while serving moldy bread to their servants, that they were not to drink old wine while serving new wine to their servants, they were not to sleep on soft cushions while their servants slept on straw. There was a saying that “whoever acquires a Hebrew slave acquires a master for himself.” (Kid. 20a) Of God, the Highest Master, it was said that even He does whatever He commands Israel to perform.

One last thing before proceeding back to the Matthew text. It was widely understood among the Jews that the injustices and inequalities found in this world, the Olam Hazeh, would be addressed and corrected in the World to Come, the Olam Haba, the Afterlife. An ancient anecdote centered on the person of a rabbi named Joseph who, in the story, fell into a state of coma. After he recovered, he was asked what he saw. He answered: “I beheld a world the reverse of this one; those who are on top here were below there, and vice versa.” 

In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus called over his disciples to offer instruction. He began by saying “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them.”  The “rulers of the Gentiles” is a generic reference but would certainly include the Roman officials ruling the land of Judah. At first glance, Jesus’ statement appears to describe a civil hierarchy of authority–one set of the officials–“the rulers of the Gentiles” exercise authority over the people on the ground, and in a typical governmental hierarchy, are subject themselves to the authority of “high officials”, who theoretically at least, would be subject to the authority of higher officials, all the way to Caesar himself. The Greek for authority is exousia, something emanating from a source that has the inherent right to issue decisions but which are voluntarily submitted to by the receiving party. When we look carefully at the Greek words of Matthew 20:25, we can find the word exousia embedded there twice, translating the terms “lord over” and “exercise authority,” but in this case, exousia has a prefix, kat, therefore yielding the word katexousia. The prefix kat adds the meaning of a downward force from above to below, a top-down exertion of authority. This would plainly describe the behavior of a Roman master upon his slave–forced, abusive labor under potentially horrific conditions.

Jesus then “reversed” the order of authority (its hierarchy) in verse 26, exhorting his disciples that “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.” As we shall see, the first would become last and the last first. The instructions given to the disciples here parallels the story told at the beginning of Chapter 26 in which The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a landowner who hires workers for his vineyard periodically during the day, and who at the end of the day, pays them in reverse  order to when they arrived at work, the last being paid first, and the first last. It is under the authority of the landowner to determine what is the just and right compensation, and likewise, it is under the authority of God in His Kingdom to determine the just and right relationship between master and servant. The master must act the part of the ebed, the diakonos, the “dust kicker,” the servant, and humbly submit to the authority of the servant. He then repeated the same instruction in verse 27, substituting slave for servant, both of whom are ebedim, there being no distinction between the two in the Hebrew language. An ebed served his master with dignity, and was imbued by the Torah with rights. To the Hebrew mind, being an ebed was a designation of very high regard, work being also something among the Jews that was highly esteemed. So much so that “whoever acquires a Hebrew slave (ebed) acquires a master for himself.” What precipitated this instruction by the Lord Jesus was the request by the mother of two disciples that her sons be seated at the right and left sides of Jesus in his kingdom. This was an apparent reference to the Olam Haba, the afterlife, in that Jesus stated that those places “belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father”–the occupancy of which would be a future event. In the Jewish conception, the Kingdom of Heaven–insofar as it might relate to the afterlife–was a world the reverse of this one, those on the bottom here would be on the top there. Bringing that principle into the here and now, Jesus chastened his disciples that those desiring high places in the Kingdom would need to humble themselves–an order of authority that was the exact opposite of the Roman order. Instead of the first remaining first and the last remaining last, those who were last in life–the ebed, the slave–would be first in the Kingdom. And this instruction also applied to the master, Jesus, that is, God, who “did not come to be served, but to serve (diakoneo).” God, in the context of Hebraic understanding, does whatever he commands His people to perform. Jesus would be the servant of mankind itself, giving his life as a “ransom for many.” (Matt. 20:28)

This word study centers on the term, “mind of Christ,” or “mindset of Christ.” Looking at its usage in Philippians 2:5, the King James version reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” The same verse in the NIV reads: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus.” The Greek word in this verse translated to either “mind” or “mindset” is phroneite, based on the word phren (pronounced “frane”) which literally and anatomically refers to “the midriff, or parts around the heart”–that is, the diaphragm. The diaphragm, physiologically, is a dome-shaped muscle under the rib cage that controls the breathing function from inside us (i.e., inhaling/exhaling) so that what takes place inside regulates what is observed about us externally. We can’t see the diaphragm nor can we even feel it–yet it’s still there performing its internal function. The diaphragm operates, therefore, from the inside out. And so does the meaning of phren–that which is “inside” us–our “mind” or “mindset” regulates our outward behavior. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word phren is used several times to translate the Hebrew word, lev, meaning “heart.” Lev is spelled with two Hebrew letters–a lamed (the Hebrew L) and a bet (the Hebrew B). Pictographically, the ancient form of the lamed resembles a shepherd’s staff. A staff, from an Hebraic perspective, associates with the concept of “control” as in the Hebrew word for image, tselem, the word used in Genesis 1:26 referring to man being made in God’s image. Pictographically, tselem would read “the desire to control chaos,” the letter signifying control being the lamed.[1] This same shepherd’s staff, represented by the lamed, is also part of several Hebrew words translated as God: El, Elo’ah and Elohiym. Therefore, the lamed is also considered to be a symbol signifying “authority”. The bet, the second letter of the word, lev, is also Hebrew for “house”. Pictographically, it is considered to resemble the inside of a house, its “floor plan”. Therefore, the pictographic meaning of “lev” is “authority within”.

The “mind of Christ” is likened, using the Greek words as a guide, to a phren, a diaphragm inside us regulating our external behavior. When looked at through the filter of 1st Century Hebraic thought, the mind of Christ would be likened to a heart, an authority within us. Though this authority is represented by Christ, it ultimately is the authority of God (1 Corinthians 11:3). This authority (samak/exousia) is not a du jour authority–a set of rules enforced by power, though on occasion, God has resorted to this (i.e., the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Tower of Babel). Primarily, it is a de facto authority–a relationship between God and man based on man’s voluntary submission to God’s rule/authority. As we exercise trusting obedience in God’s instructions, we willingly enter the “sphere” of God’s authority, the Kingdom of God; we’re not compelled at gunpoint to abide by God’s rules nor are we prodded like cattle into the sphere of His authority, His Kingdom.

There is another Hebrew word, translated on occasion as “mind”, that may supply an appropriate imagery of this matter of “voluntary submission.” Isaiah 26:1-18 is considered a “song of praise” that would one day be sung by the Jewish people upon their return to their own land, under the authority and governance of God’s rules and ordinances. Verse 3 reads that God “will keep in perfect peace (shalom shalom) those whose minds are steadfast” because they trust in God. What is it to have a “steadfast mind”? The Hebrew word translated as mind here is yetzer. This word has perhaps less to do with the mind, and much more to do with something formed. We first encounter the word in Genesis 2:7: “And Yehovah our God formed (yetzer) man from the dust of the ground.” The prophet Isaiah uses this word to describe the relationship of clay to its potter:  “Shall what is formed (yetzer) say to the one who formed (yetzer) it, ‘You did not make me?'” (Is. 29:16) The Creator formed (yetzer) man, not vice versa. The potter forms the pottery. Aside from a reference to something formed, the word yetzer also means “intent”, “inclination” or “purpose”. For instance, in Genesis 8:21, God told Noah that the “intent (purpose: yetzer) of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” We also find yetzer as purpose elsewhere in the Scripture including Genesis 6:5, Deuteronomy 31:21, 1 Chronicles 28:9 and 29:18.

Next, what is it to be steadfast? The word here is samak, the same Hebrew word signifying authority, and a word connoting the transfer of authority by the laying on of hands.[2] Moses did this to his successor, Joshua: “So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay (samak) your hand on him. . .Give him some of your majesty so the whole Israelite community will obey him’. . . Moses did as the LORD commanded him. . .He laid (samak) his hands on him and commissioned him.” (Numbers 27:18-20, 22-23) This illustrates the transfer of authority via laying of hands (samak) from the standpoint of the giver, or in the Isaiah example, from the standpoint of the potter, the one who forms (yetzer) the clay. What is the meaning of samak from the standpoint of that which is formed, the clay, the receiver? First, it is useful to know that samak is also the root of the 15th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, pronounced samech. Pictographically, the samech resembles a staff with a hand resting on it. It means to “support,” “lean on” or “rest in”. The clay, therefore, rests in the hands of its potter, and willingly submits to its formation by the work of those hands.

What is it then for us to have a steadfast mind? Borrowing the prophet Isaiah’s potter/clay example, when we “rest in” (samak) the hands of the Master Potter, when we “lean” on (samak) our Creator, when we cease attempting to control our lives and rely on God as our support (samak), we enter the sphere of His samak/authority, submitting ourselves willingly to the work of His hands so that He will form (yetzer) us according to His purpose (yetzer). Likewise, when we “take on” the mindset of Christ, we enter the sphere of Christ’s authority, submitting ourselves to the authority of Christ, who is in turn under the authority of God, internalizing, leaning on, resting in and being supported by (samak) the instructions of Christ (in trusting obedience such that we allow God to fashion or mold (yetzer) our outward behavior, governing it according to His purpose (yetzer).

When we adopt the “mindset of Christ,” according to the Apostle Paul, we, like Christ, “do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.” (Phil. 2:3) Rather, we “humble ourselves” (v.8) and in so doing, enable God to fashion us into the “pottery”, that is, the person, he intends/purposes us to be. And when we do this, we achieve, to again borrow the prophet Isaiah’s term, “perfect peace” (shalom shalom).

END NOTES

[1] For a more detailed explanation of tselem, see http://fojlv.org/?p=172.

[2] See https://odmlv.org/?p=231 for a more complete discussion of authority.

 

“The Great Commission” begins with the following words spoken by Jesus to his disciples: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Mat. 28:18) The word, authority, translates the Greek word exousia (ex-oo-si-a), a combination of two words–ex, meaning “out of” and ousia meaning “being.” Together, it literally means “out of being” in the sense of something being “sent out.” Out of being implies the existence of an “origin” or source that possesses the liberty to act as it sees fit, the inherent right to make decisions, the ability to exercise power or rule over something or someone as it would please itself to do so. Importantly, exousia, that is, authority, can be conferred, transferred or delegated from one person (the origin or source) to another.

There are 102 instances of exousia in its various grammatical forms in the New Testament. Ten of these instances are found in the Book of Matthew, one of which we have already discovered in verse 28:18. A corresponding word in Hebrew that provides an interesting imagery for the use and meaning of exousia in Matthew is the word s’mikah. The root of this word is samak, referring literally to the laying of hands upon a person or an animal. There are numerous instructions involving this word in connection to the giving of a sacrifice. For instance, in Leviticus 1:4 we read, “And he (the person making the offering) shall put his hand (v’samak yadov) on the head of the burnt offering and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.” This then signified a transfer of ownership of the animal from the person to God, as well as a transfer of the person’s sin from himself to the animal. Another aspect of samak, in the context of authority, referred to one’s ability and permission to discern and carry out the will of God. This measure of authority was considered to have been passed down from generation to generation by the laying of hands (samak), an instance of which was the transfer of authority from Moses to Joshua. In Deuteronomy 34:9, we read: “Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands (samak yadov) on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.” The Book of Numbers provides further insight about the “transfer of authority” from Moses to Joshua: “So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. . .Give him some of your majesty so the whole Israelite community will obey him’. . . Moses did as the LORD commanded him. . .He laid his hands on him and commissioned him.” (Numbers 27:18-20, 22-23)

At or near the days of Jesus upon the Earth, a select group of rabbis were considered to have s’mikah, that is, to have the authority to interpret Scripture, not simply teaching someone else’s understanding of the Torah. One of those in the generation preceding Jesus was Rabbi Hillel who coined the phrase “what is hateful to you, do not do unto others”–the “Golden Rule” of Judaism. He followed that by saying “this is the whole Torah, all else is explanation.” This is reflected in Jesus’ saying “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 7:12) At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew states “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority (exousia), and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matthew 7:28-29) This is the first instance of the use of exousia in the Book of Matthew.

It would be followed shortly thereafter by another. In Chapter 8, a centurion–a commander in the Roman army–asked Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus offered to pay a visit to the centurion’s residence to which the officer humbly objected, preferring instead that Jesus just say the word which would thereby heal his servant. And then followed a mention by the centurion of exousia: “For I also (kai) am a man under authority (hupo exousian tassomenos), with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” (Matthew 8:9) To this, Jesus “marveled” that he had never met a man in all of Israel with such great faith, for authority sits at the very essence of faith–it is the trusting obedience of one for his superior–in this case, the trust of a soldier for his commander, the trust of a servant for his master, the trust of a disciple for his teacher. The Greek word “tasso” refers to an “ordered arrangement”–the centurion had a place in a chain of authority. He was at once “under the authority of another, and in turn, his soldiers were under his authority. Each knew their “place” and their responsibility, and did what they were told. Moreover, the centurion had been given the authority from his superior to carry out his appointed task, and he in turn, gave authority to his soldiers to carry out their appointed tasks. Permission was “sent out” (exousia) from the highest authority to one “under him” along with the power to carry out an instruction, who in turn, gave permission and power for those under him to carry out the same instruction, and so on all the way down to the lowest foot soldier. When Jesus commended the centurion’s faith, it was not only about the centurion’s faith that Jesus could heal from afar, but it was also, if not primarily, that the centurion knew his “place” in the hierarchy of authority in which he operated as an officer.[1]

When the centurion told Jesus, “for I also (kai) am a man under authority,” he was drawing a parallel between himself and Jesus, the Messiah, who Himself was “sent out” at a time appointed by God (the fullness of time–pleroma o chronos) to redeem the world. The centurion understood something about Jesus–that Jesus was also under authority–the authority of God, His Father. We find this fatherly authority expressed explicitly in the Book of John, in which Jesus states: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19) “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.” (John 8:28) “For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.” (John 12:49) Jesus belongs to a genealogy of authority, beginning with Judah, fourth son of Jacob who said of his son: “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet.” (Gen. 49:10) The scepter is the “staff of authority”, and it is in the ancestral line of Judah that the kings of Israel and Judah would be born, starting with King David, in whom the throne became hereditary, and leading ultimately to Jesus the Messiah, the King of Kings. This genealogy of authority begins even before Judah with the “fatherly authority” of Abraham transmitted over the generations leading to the Davidic line of kingly authority, and finally, to the Lord Jesus. We see this entire “lineage of authority” unfold beginning in Matthew Chapter 1.

The topic of authority begins the Book of Matthew and also concludes it. In the final verses of Chapter 28 as found at the beginning of this article, Jesus states that “all authority (exousia) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” (28:18) The words “has been given to Me” implies an antecedent source of authority–that is, God. Jesus, in turn, authorizes His disciples to “disciple all nations. . .” (28:19) If the centurion belonged to a hierarchy of authority, we do also as disciples of Jesus–we are permitted and empowered to make even more disciples, each person in the chain understanding their “place” in God’s “government” as it were, His Kingdom. This Kingdom is not so much a place, but a movement of men into the sphere of God’s authority, entering into God’s “order” by submitting to His rules and instructions. Though we have the ability to comply with God’s instructions, whether we do so is not a matter of force, but rather a matter of choice. For authority to take hold, there must be compliance. Authority and compliance are the two key elements of the “relationship” between a master and his servant, a commander and his soldier and in our case, a disciple and his teacher. When Jesus commended the centurion for his faith–“with no one in Israel have I found such faith”–the clear implication is that it is the few, not the many, who precisely grasp their “place” in God’s order of things, thereby entering into a deep relationship with their Creator.

END NOTES

[1] Pastor Fernando Basilio provides an even deeper treatment of the meeting between Jesus and the centurion. He aptly describes it as an encounter between two authority figures. However, the centurion correctly surmised that Jesus was the higher authority. When he protested that Jesus should come under his roof (Matthew 8:8), Pastor Basilio states: “it would mean that Jesus will come ‘under’ the centurion’s authority. And the centurion would have none of that.” For a more detailed analysis, please navigate to www.fojlv.org/?p=466

A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE SABBATH

After an absence from Bible Fellowship of two weeks, I was very pleased upon my return to see the group engage the subject of Shabbat. The practice of 7^th-day observance of the Sabbath is virtually non-existent today among the vast majority of Christians. These same Christians concurrently claim the Hebrew Scriptures as their canon, and in those Scriptures, the oracles of God specifically command its observance:

 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ⁹ For six days you shall labor (abad) and do all your work (melachah), ¹⁰ but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work (melachah), you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your ⁽resident who stays with you. ¹¹ For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested (nuach) on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8-11)

 “For six days you are to do your work (ma’aseh), but on the seventh day you shall cease (shabbat) from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest (nuach),  and the son of your female slave, as well as the stranger residing with you, may refresh themselves.” (Exodus 23:12)

² Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ¹³ “Now as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You must keep My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, so that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. ¹⁴ Therefore you are to keep the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it must be put to death; for whoever does any work (melachah) on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. ¹⁵ For six days work (melachah) may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath (shabbat) of complete rest (shabbaton) holy to the Lord; whoever does any work (melachah) on the Sabbath day must be put to death. ¹⁶ So the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to celebrate the Sabbath throughout their generations as a permanent covenant.’ ¹⁷ It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased (shabbat) from labor, and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:12-17)

 “You shall work (abad) six days, but on the seventh day you shall rest (shabbat); even during plowing time and harvest you shall rest (shabbat).” (Exodus 34:21)

“For six days (melachah) work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a Sabbath of complete rest (shabbaton) to the Lord; whoever does any work (melachah) on it shall be put to death. ³ You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.”” (Exodus 35:2-3)

“For six days work (melachah) may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest (shabbaton) a holy convocation. You shall not do any work (melachah); it is a Sabbath to the Lord in all your dwellings.” (Leviticus 23:3)

 “Keep the Sabbath day to treat it as holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. ¹³ For six days you shall labor (abad) and do all your work (melachah), ¹⁴ but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall not do any work (melachah) that day, you or your son or your daughter, or your male slave or your female slave, or your ox, your donkey, or any of your cattle, or your resident who stays with you, so that your male slave and your female slave may rest (nuach) as well as you. ¹⁵ And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to celebrate the Sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:12-15)

The purpose of bringing forth the above Scriptures is to remind us of the emphasis with which the LORD advanced the observance of the 7^th-day Sabbath. More often than not, the 7^th -day Sabbath is dismissed by Christians as something satisfied by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, or something that is practiced on Sundays, or something that can be practiced on any day one chooses to practice it, or something meant for Jews only. Far be it from this teaching to lurch into the “rabbit hole” of Sabbath controversies dating back to the 2^nd Century.

The centuries-old debate over the 7^th-day Sabbath, and the prevailing view that the Sabbath is either not to be observed on the 7^th day or not at all, has made it irrelevant to modern Christians. It is regarded as an outdated religious obligation, a stricture upon the Christian’s relationship with his Maker. In each of the Synoptic Gospels, a controversy arises between Jesus and a group of Pharisees over the disciples plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath. In the Mark version of this encounter, Jesus remarked that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27) This strongly implies that the Sabbath has a value for mankind.

Years ago, I read a treatise by Pastor Ray Stedman who made the observation that in the Genesis 1 creation narrative, the account of each of the first six days is concluded with the words “And there was evening and there was morning.” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) There is no such attribution to the 7^th day. That “day” takes on the character of timelessness.

Inasmuch as we understand the LORD to be the creator of all things, He also is the creator of time itself. Therefore, the eternal LORD of creation exists outside of time.  When we observe the Sabbath, we, in effect, enter a timeless sphere in which, however briefly, we seek contact with the eternal, timeless God of all creation.

Of all the days, only the seventh day is sanctified¸ that is, made holy by the LORD. When looked upon as a “day”, it is “sanctified time”. It is set apart by the LORD for a special purpose, something no other day in Scripture can claim.

A 20^th-century rabbi, Abraham Joshua Heschel, said of the Sabbath: “Unless one learns how to relish the taste of Sabbath. . .one will be unable to enjoy the taste of eternity in the world to come.” According to Heschel, it is through observance of Sabbath that we get a small “taste” of eternity. Is experiencing the eternal something desired by every Christian? I think it is. Therefore, for the believer, the Sabbath—an entry into the sphere of the eternal—may have an unexpected relevancy for today’s Christian.

In the lessons I missed at ODMLV, the meaning of the word Shabbat was studied. Though it is more likely than not to be translated as “rest”, the meaning in Hebrew is “to cease”. Cease what? An explanation was offered that one is instructed “to cease whatever one is doing”. This is imprecise. The first use of the word, shabbat, in Scripture is found in Genesis 2:2:

 ^“By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested (shabbat) on the seventh day from all His work (melachah) which He had done.” (Genesis 2:2)

Specifically, God rested, or rather, ceased, His work on the 7^th day. In English, we have one word, work, spanning many sub-categories of the same. Mowing a lawn is work. Constructing a building is work. Teaching a class is work. And so on and so forth. Hebrew, unlike English, has three words for work, each with a different meaning.

Ma’aseh, the root of which is asah, means to do or make. This can pertain to the production or making of something. We find asah seven times in the creation narrative (Genesis 1:7, 11, 12, 16, 25, 26, 31). In Exodus 23:12, this type of work is mentioned as something to be done for six days, then ceased from on the seventh. In none of the Sabbath instructions is ma’aseh mentioned explicitly as prohibited work with punishment for those doing it on the 7^th day.

Avodah, from the root abad, means to labor or to serve. The labor or service here is “ordinary” in the sense of “lift that barge, tote that bail” or simply work absent any nuance of creativity. The noun related to this word is ebed, meaning servant. Eliezer, for instance, was the ebed of Abraham, his master (adon). The first use of abad is found in Genesis 2:5 in which the text states that “there was no man to work (abad) the ground.” Shortly thereafter in the same narrative, we read “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden to tend and keep it.” (Genesis 2:15) The word translated as “tend” comes from the Hebrew root word, abad. Adam was placed in the garden to service it, not to create it. This type of work is mentioned as permitted for six days in Exodus 20:8 and Deuteronomy 5:12 but is not explicitly mentioned as the type of work prohibited on the 7^th day.

Melachah refers to “creative” work. What is meant by creative? A way to conceptualize it would be to consider a chair. Moving a chair around a table would be abodah; assembling pieces of wood or metal together to create a chair would be melachah.

At the conclusion of the Genesis creation narrative in verses 2:2,3, the text states twice that “God rested from all His work.” The word translated as work in these two verses is melachah, a specific reference to God’s creative work in bringing the heavens and earth into existence.

Melachah is derived from the same root word as malak, the Hebrew for angel or messenger. Since melachah first appears at the end of the creation narrative, and because from its common root is derived a word referencing a form of divine being, it is immediately associated with divine craftsmanship. However, man, created in the image of God to carry out God’s mission on Earth, also has the God-given capacity to do creative work, that is, melachah, though obviously not on the scale of creating the heavens and the earth. The Genesis creation narrative explains that God made man to rule over other living, created things. (Genesis 1:26,28) As God is the “master of the universe”, melachah are the ways in which man exercises mastery over both living and non-living things in nature, if not nature itself.

In the Book of Exodus, Moses received instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle, God’s intended residence among His people. This is documented beginning in Chapter 25 and ending in Chapter 31:11. In verse 31:2, we read that the person of Bezalel has been “filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in craftsmanship.” The word translated as craftsmanship is melachah. God told Moses that Bezalel, along with a person named Oholiab, plus others, in whose “hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill that they may make all that I have commanded you.” (Exodus 31:11)

It is immediately after these six-plus chapters of Tabernacle instructions that God reiterated, if not expanded upon, the commandment to observe the Sabbath in verses 12-17. This matter of the Sabbath had not been mentioned in the text since its mention in Exodus 23:12. Why here?

There is a pattern in the text connecting Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 with Exodus 25:1 through 31:17. It looks like this:

A—Melachah of the creation of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1-2:1)

B—God rested (Genesis 2:2-3)

A—Melachah of the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:1-31:11)

B—Man must rest (Exodus 31:12-17)

In both cases, divine or divinely-inspired creative acts, melachah, are followed by divinely-required rest, without melachah.

How then do we know what is melachah and what is not? The rabbis of antiquity, seizing upon the proximity of the Sabbath requirements to the instructions for building the Tabernacle, deduced that there were various types of created materials used to construct the Tabernacle, which in turn, corresponded to specific categories of creative work on those materials, that is, melachah. From this, they came up with 39 categories of melachah that were prohibited to be done during the Sabbath.

1. Carrying
   Burning
   3. Extinguishing
   4. Finishing
   5. Writing
   6. Erasing
   7. Cooking
   8. Washing
   9. Sewing
   10. Tearing
   11. Knotting
   12. Untying
   13. Shaping
   14. Plowing
   15. Planting
   16. Reaping
   17. Harvesting
   18. Threshing
   19. Winnowing
   20. Selecting
   21. Sifting
   22. Grinding
   23. Kneading
   24. Combing
   25. Spinning
   26. Dyeing
   27. Chain-stitching
   28. Warping
   29. Weaving
   30. Unraveling
   31. Building
   32. Demolishing
   33. Trapping
   34. Shearing
   35. Slaughtering
   36. Skinning
   37. Tanning
   38. Smoothing
   39. Marking

This matter of how to observe the Sabbath, or rather, how to abstain from doing melachah, is, in the hands of the rabbis, already presenting as a burdensome task. But, on top of the 39 categories, the ancient rabbis, intellectual descendants of the Pharisees, piled on an almost endless set of instructions in the effort to fine tune Sabbath obedience to the minutest detail.

Alfred Edersheim was a 19^th century Biblical scholar and a Jew who converted to the Christian faith. In his most quoted work, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he states:

“Let us see how Rabbinism taught Israel to observe its Sabbath. In not less than 24 chapters [In the Jerusalem Talmud[1] a Gemara[2] is attached to the first 20 of the Mishnaic tractate Shabbat; in the Babylon Talmud to all 24 chapters.] matters are seriously discussed as of vital religious importance which one would scarcely imagine a sane intellect would seriously entertain. Through 64.5 folio columns in the Jerusalem, and 156 double pages of folio in the Babylon Talmud does the enumeration and discussion of possible cases, drag on. . .The Talmud itself bears witness to this, when it speaks of a certain Rabbi who had spent no less that 2 ½ years in the study of only one of these 24 chapters!”

Edersheim then launched into a study of Pharisaic minutiae regarding Sabbath regulations. There are far too many stipulations to cover in this article; it would likely require weeks or even months of study. To give a small inkling of the overwhelming detail involved, I will provide several examples of one category of melachah: carrying.

• Carrying the weight of anything heavier than a fig was considered a “burden” and was labeled melachah.
• If carrying an object in front which then slipped to the back, one was guilty of labor considered melachah.
• If an object were thrown into the air by the left hand and caught by the right, this was considered sinful. However, if caught by the mouth and eaten, then there was no sin.
• Any object, regardless of size, was not permitted to be transported from a public to a private place, or vice versa. Public places were considered to be “open” whereas private places were “enclosed”. A person was not allowed to carry an object as tiny as a key from their homes into a public space. Rabbis resorted to wearing keys on chains around their necks so that it would be akin to an article of clothing and hence not be considered sinful melachah. On the other hand, lifting heavy items such as furniture inside within one’s house was not considered melachah.

This is a mere smattering of regulations imposed by the rabbis, and it’s a fraction of just one of 39 categories of melachah. Imagine studying all of it!

Edersheim went on to say this: “Rabbinism enlarged the simple Sabbath law as expressed in the Bible, [Ex. 20:8-11; 23:12-17; 34:1-3; Deut. 5:12-15] and, in its anxiety to ensure its most exact observance, changed the spiritual import of its rest into a complicated code of external and burdensome circumstances.”

Is it any wonder that Jesus opposed the Pharisees insofar as Sabbath regulations were concerned?

Another word intimately associated with the Sabbath is rest. Whereas in English we use the one word, rest, the key Scriptures regarding the Sabbath actually have two different Hebrew words for rest. The first word, shabbat, meaning “to cease”, already been touched upon. One ceases one’s work, melachah, on the 7^th day. God ceased (shabbat) His creative work (melachah) in Genesis 2:2. Israel was commanded to rest in the form of ceasing melachah on the 7^th day in Exodus 31:14, 34:21, 35:2; and Leviticus 23:2.

The other word translated “rest” is nuach. We find this word used as “rest” in Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:14. This word is little mentioned in churches. I have neither seen nor heard it mentioned in any Bible Studies. So, what exactly does it mean?

Nuach is the root word for two other words that appear in Genesis 5:29. One is the Hebrew name of the patriarch Noah, pronounced in Hebrew as Noach. The second is nacham. The verse itself, announcing the birth of Noah, reads:

“Now he called his name Noah (Noach), saying ‘This one will give us rest (nacham) from our work (ma’aseh) and from the toil of our hands from the ground that the LORD has cursed.’”

In Hebrew, names mean things and can reveal the God-given purpose of a human being. Noah’s purpose, embedded in his name, was to give nacham to his people. Nacham, based on its root, nuach, has the physical appearance of strong breathing, but in a more abstract sense, the strong breathing, depending on context, is an outward expression of comforting or consoling oneself. We find this word in Psalm 23:4: “Your rod and your staff, they comfort (nacham) me.”

When we rest in the sense of nuach we “take comfort” from our labor. How then would this apply to God, of Whom it was written in Exodus 20:11 that He took nuach on the 7^th day? Did God need comfort? Consolation? Or perhaps an alternative meaning of nuach such as regret or repentance?

Any of the above might apply to a human being, but none of the above seem suitable insofar as God is concerned. There remains another possible meaning of nuach, having to do with placing or “putting aside” something. The first use of nuach in Scripture is found in a verse we previously looked at for a different reason, Genesis 2:15.

“Then the LORD God took the man and put (nuach) him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”

On the occasion of gathering and keeping the manna on the 6^th day, Moses told the leaders of the people:

“Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside (nuach) to be kept until morning.” (Exodus 16:23)

There is a parallelism in the above verse. The sabbath is holy, that is, something to be set apart. This corresponds to the unused manna which is to be set aside.

In Exodus 20:11, the text states: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested (nuach) on the seventh day; therefore, the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Here, again, there is an apparent parallelism. In reverse, God set apart the Sabbath day which corresponds to His nuach, the setting aside of the melachah that established His creation. Thereby, through the act of setting aside (nuach), He rested.

Israel was commanded to do the same, setting aside their work (melachah) for one day, in order that they might remember and reflect on the mighty works of God, His act of creation (Exodus 20:11) and the release of Israel from bondage in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 5:15).

Christians share the creation narrative with their Jewish brothers. On behalf of this, there is cause for both groups to set aside their work and to set apart a space in time to reflect upon the glory of the One who created the heavens and the earth. The Christian has the additional opportunity to set aside his work and sanctify the time to remember Jesus, who on the day before the Sabbath went to the cross and on the day after the Sabbath rose from the dead.

END NOTES

[1] The Talmud derives from the word, lamad, meaning instruction. It is the main corpus of the Oral Torah, considered by the Pharisees, and later the rabbis, to have been communicated to Moses by God, concurrently with the written Torah. It is then postulated that it was handed down orally throughout the generations until the 2^nd century C.E. when it began to be codified into writing. There are two versions of Talmud, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.

[2] A rabbinical commentary.

I copied the list of 39 categories from the website, ou.org.

Many thanks are due to Pastor Terry Austin who set a beautiful foundation in place for the continuing study of the Sabbath.

A–“This is My commandment, that you love one another (Gr. agapate allelous), just as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)

B–“Greater love (Gr. agapen) has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (Gr. philon).” (John 15:13)

B–” You are My friends (Gr. philoi) if you do what I command you.” (John 15:14)

A–“This I command you, that you love one another (Gr. agapate allelous).”  (John 15:17)

During the week beginning April 16, 2017, I had the opportunity to travel through the beautiful country of Romania. There were two notable deaths that occurred in that week roughly ten years apart–one on April 16, 2007, and the other on April 19, 2017. I’d like to reflect on those incidents with you.

Let’s start with the more recent one. On April 19, 2017, during our stay in the city of Timisoara, I read a report on the internet that ex-NFL player, Aaron Hernandez, had committed suicide. In 2013, he was convicted of 1st-degree murder in the killing of Odin Lloyd, a man who was dating the sister of Mr. Hernandez’ fiancée. Before taking his own life, Mr. Hernandez reportedly wrote the words “John 3:16” in ink across his forehead and in blood on the wall of his prison cell. Under this was a Bible open to John 3:16 with the verse marked in blood.

On April 16, 2007, student Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech University, murdering teachers and students, 33 persons in all. There were many heroic persons who lost their lives trying to resist the shooter. Among those was one, Liviu Librescu, a Romanian, who served as Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech since 1985. Before that, Dr. Librescu was a Holocaust survivor; he refused to pledge allegiance to the Romanian Communist Party; he lost his position as an academic due to his sympathies toward Israel and ultimately he emigrated to the Promised Land after Prime Minister Menachem Begin intervened on his behalf. He was a Jew. Upon hearing gunfire from other classrooms, Librescu held the door of his classroom shut while most of his students escaped through the windows. Cho, the shooter, fired bullets through the door, five of which hit Librescu, one fatally to the head.

There are some Christians, by no means all, who look at Aaron Hernandez and, in spite of his murderous way, see a “saved” man, a man who made a “decision for Christ,” albeit toward the latter stages of his life, perhaps even at the very end. On the other hand, in Liviu Librescu, they see an eternally condemned man, despite the righteous walk he walked, culminating in an heroic act that led to his death, all because he never, to anyone’s knowledge, made a “decision for Christ.” Personally, I do not presume to know the will of God in matters of one’s eternal destination. God’s grace is, after all, His.

There is an important instruction of Jesus found in John 15. It repeats in verses 12 and 17 forming a synonymous parallelism. What Jesus said to his disciples is this: “This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. (v. 12) “This I command you, that you love one another.” (v. 17) The words love one another are in Greek, agapate allelous, and they precisely repeat in those two verses. Jesus put these words forth, not as a suggestion, but as a command (Gr. entolay). We also find this same command in an earlier part of the same discussion between Jesus and His disciples in which our present literary structure is located. Verse 13:34 reads: “A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” The phrase “love one another” (agapate allelous) repeats in each line of this verse, forming yet another synonymous parallelism. The weight of repetition of the phrase “love one another” in repeating literary structures authored by John shows just how important this particular command was to Jesus.

Within our literary structure, the chiasm shown at the top of the article, verses 12 and 17 point to what it means to love one another in verse 13: “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” The context here is that verse 13 “amplifies” verse 12 by referencing what is “the greatest love.” Verses 12 and 13, looked at together, form a synthetic parallelism since verse 13 “enlarges” upon verse 12. And what is “the greatest love?” To “lay down one’s life for one’s friends,” even unto death. And who are one’s friends? “You are my friends if you do what I command you.” (v. 14) The word friend (Gr. philoi) repeats in verses 13 and 14, two verses that yet form another synthetic parallelism in which Jesus explains in verse 14 what is meant by “friends” in verse 13.

When we look at the “end of life” experiences of Liviu Librescu and Aaron Hernandez, we can ask: who most closely modeled the behavior commanded by Jesus? Would the phrase, “love one another,” apply to Dr. Librescu? Could we fairly say that he modeled the “greatest love” by giving his life to save his students? If you were situated in his classroom on April 16, 2007, who would you say most closely followed the command of Christ–a Jewish professor who barricaded himself at the door to save his students, or the students who fled out the classroom windows to save themselves?

Let’s now turn our attention to Mr. Hernandez. Was killing himself an example of “loving one another?” Was it akin to laying his life down for his friends? Or was it a self-centered act to escape an existence that was displeasing to him? Mr. Hernandez once played football for the New England Patriots. In terms of football, he was considered a very talented player. The New England Patriots are considered one of the best, if not the best, team in the National Football League, having won more championships than any other franchise. The culture of the Patriots is known as the “Patriot Way.” It embodies dedication, commitment, and hard work toward unity and success on the field of play. Most of all, prioritizing the needs of the team over the needs of the individual player is at the core of the Patriot Way. Players who conduct themselves selfishly or with poor attitudes are quickly sent packing.

When Mr. Hernandez murdered Mr. Lloyd, was that an example of his hard work and dedication to the team’s success? When he was subsequently arrested for murder and, as a consequence, was removed from the field of play, did that prioritize the team over the individual? Were either of  these acts compatible with the Patriot Way? Apparently not, for 90 minutes after his arrest, Mr. Hernandez was cut from the team.

Over the years, there have been many players who have worn the Patriot uniform.  Those uniforms display the insignia of the team, its color scheme, its brand. However, putting on the uniform does not make you a Patriot. Only by following the “Patriot Way” do you become a Patriot, or remain one. Mr. Hernandez wore the uniform, but his behavior was not according to the Patriot Way. He was jettisoned off the team.

There are many Christians who wear the uniform of Christianity. They wear shirts with symbols and signs, tattoos of Bible verses or even the image of Jesus. They may memorize Bible verses and make professions of faith in Jesus. Wearing the uniform of Christianity may make one a Christian in some people’s eyes, but it does not, in and of itself, make one a follower of Jesus.

You see, like the Patriots, Jesus has a way. And to walk in that way is to behave according to the command He repeated over and over in our text from John 15 and 13, love one another. In Hebrew, the word for love is ahav, meaning “I give.” Being a follower of Jesus, in the context of our chiasm, a friend of Jesus, means to follow His commands, beginning again in our context, with “loving one another.” At its most amplified level, this means “to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (v. 13) Mr. Librescu gave his life for others, sacrificing his life to save the lives of his students, thereby aligning his behavior to the commands of Jesus. Mr. Hernandez, on the other hand, took his life, along with any possibility that he might be of service to others, to the grave. A person can wear the “uniform of Christianity”–write John 3:16 on his forehead, write it on a wall in blood, open the Bible to that verse with John 3:16 highlighted in blood–but only the person who conducts his life according to the way of Jesus is the follower of Jesus, the friend of Jesus.

CHIASM, 1 SAMUEL 12:19-23

Explaining the Chiasm

Verses 19 and 23 share a phrase: hitpalel baad–“pray for your sake” or when followed by abadeka, “pray for (the sake of) your servants.” The theme here, therefore, is praying for others. Verses 20 and 21 also share a common word, sur, meaning to “turn from” or “depart.” What then does it mean to pray for someone else? Samuel provides an answer to this question, but perhaps not quite what many would have expected.

The conversation captured by this chiasm followed Samuel’s chastisement of the people for desiring a human king, all the while disregarding the rule of their rightful king–YHVH. In verse 12:7, Samuel told the people: “Now therefore stand that I may reason with you before the LORD all the righteous acts of the LORD that He did to you and to your fathers.” The word, reason, is the Hebrew, shaphat, meaning to judge. And the judgment was this: that though the LORD had acted on their behalf to bring them out of Egypt, “they forgot the LORD their God.” (1 Sam. 12:9) So the LORD sent judges (shoftim, meaning judges, the noun associated with shaphat) in the persons of Jerubbaal, Bedan (otherwise known as Balak), Jephthah and Samuel, who “delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around, so that you lived in security.” (1 Sam. 12:11)

The latest offense was Israel’s request for a king. “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us, although the Lord your God was your king.” (1 Sam. 12:12) A chiasm just prior to the one we’re looking at demonstrated to the people that what they had done was wrong.

With this as a context, we now arrive at verse 19. The people, having witnessed the sign of the thunder and rain, now know and see that they have “added” (yasaph) to the evil sin they committed in requesting a king. They said to Samuel to pray for them (hitpalel baad) “so that we may not die.” And what prayer did Samuel pray? Did he fall to his knees, or face to the ground, and beg God to forgive Israel? His response started with two words: “Al tirau,” meaning “do not fear.” And he followed that with an instruction: “Do not turn aside (sur meaning depart) from following the LORD, but serve[1] (avod) the LORD with all your heart.” (v. 20)  And in the very next breath, he again stated not to “turn aside, for then you would go after (achar) futile things.” What are futile things? In Hebrew, the word is tohu, the very same word found in Genesis 1:2–“the earth was tohu va bohu“–formless and void. In that same chapter, God made seven utterances–“vayomer Elohim“–and the world was brought into order. Man was then made in “the image of God”–tselem Elohim–with tselem pictographically meaning “the desire to control chaos.” Therefore, following the LORD brings order; departing or turning aside from the LORD brings tohu–chaos.

So, what was Samuel’s prayer? Did he go off somewhere to lift up his fellow Israelites to the LORD? There is nothing in this passage of Scripture bearing witness to anything like that. Rather, it simply states that Samuel resolved to instruct Israel in what was good and upright. And, if we take verses 20 and 21 into account, he told Israel not to “turn aside” from God, to follow the LORD, to serve the LORD with all their heart, to turn themselves toward the way and order of God, since to do otherwise would be “tohu“–chaos. That was Samuel’s palel–his prayer. Palal literally means to judge oneself, directing one’s heart and mouth to God. Samuel looked inside himself, aligned himself with the purpose for which God created man–the desire to control chaos–and issued a “call to action” for his fellow Israelites to do the same.

Is this what it means to pray for others? In the context of this Scriptural passage, yes. If this seems strange to us, it is because we are raised within the paradigm of associating prayer with its Latin root–precari, meaning entreat, ask or the bringing of a petition to God. Although this view of prayer–precari–has its own Biblical basis, to restrict our view of prayer to precari only narrows the means by which we enrich our relationship with God.

END NOTES

[1] This word, avod, meaning to serve or work, is first found in Genesis 2:5, “and there was no man to work the ground.” Man then is brought to life in Genesis 2:7. In Genesis 2:15, God put the man in the garden of Eden to avod (work), and keep (shamar–keep watch over) it.

On December 10th, 2017, I was invited by Pastor Blair Cuares of The Word fror Everyone church in Davao City, Philippines, to preach a message about the birth of Jesus. What follows, with the exception of the End Notes,  is the text of that preaching.

As we approach Christmas, the birth of Jesus takes center stage. Of the four Gospel accounts, only two speak about this event, Matthew and Luke. When Pastor Blair approached me last week about addressing you today, he mentioned that he wanted something “different.” Since he spent a good deal of his sermon last week examining the obedient behavior of Jesus’ parents, Joseph and Mary, in the Book of Luke, I’ll take that to mean that he’s leaving the Matthew account to me.

What Pastor Blair may also have meant when he wanted something “different” was that he wanted an “Hebraic” approach, and as such, the Book of Matthew is probably an excellent fit. There are over 5000 known Greek manuscripts of the Book of Matthew, compared to less than 30 written in Hebrew, mostly pertaining to a 14th-century Hebrew translation known as the Shem Tov Matthew. However, a number of early Church fathers–Papias, Origen and Eusebius–all considered the original Book of Matthew to have been authored in Hebrew.[1] Although there are differing views over the dominant language of 1st Century Judea–the land that Jesus walked–there has emerged mounting evidence that Hebrew, not Aramaic, was that language.[2] This evidence includes the vast majority of Biblical texts found in 1947 in the caves of Qumran, otherwise known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that were printed in Hebrew. Also among the findings at Qumran were non-Biblical texts known as pesharim, used to teach the Scriptures to the common man of Jesus’ time. They are all in Hebrew. Of 100 Semitic-language coins in 1st Century Judea, 99 were minted in Hebrew compared to one in Aramaic. Of the 700 pottery fragments found at Mosada–the climactic battle location of the failed 70 A.D. Jewish revolt against the Romans–Hebrew inscriptions outnumber Aramaic ones by a ratio of 9 to 1.

So, with all this in view, we read Matthew primarily relying on the Greek text, with a keen eye for Hebrew word equivalents that may have been used by the earliest readers of the book.

One more thing before we launch into the Matthean text. . .all of us are seeking a connection with God. The paths we take can be different. Some of us connect with God primarily through prayer. Others, as Pastor Blair emphasized last week, make their connection with God primarily through obedience to God’s commands. Still others have dreams or visions or speak prophetically.

Many, including me, find their primary connection with God through the reading of His Word. I do not claim this to be a better connection, or more important than any of the others. Any connection to God is a great connection. However, when we seek to connect with God through His Word, then it’s important to allow the Word to speak to us. One way that we allow the God-inspired authors of Scripture to reveal what they intended us to understand is to identify how they arranged the text. We can start by looking at repeating words and ideas in the text of a passage. As we do this, we begin to cobble together the literary structure of a passage. Once we do that, we begin to discern what the God-inspired author intended for us to know.

The birth of Jesus is found in Matthew 1:25. Prior to that, in verse 24, Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus, awoke from a dream. The opening line of verse 24 reads: “And Joseph awoke from his sleep.” Question: is there a corresponding verse in which Joseph enters his dream? In verse 20, we find this:  “But when he had considered this [secretly sending away the pregnant Mary, his betrothed],  an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying ‘do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.'”  Is the angel of the Lord mentioned elsewhere? Returning to verse 24, after Joseph awoke, the verse continues that Joseph “did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife.”

As we identify correspondences in the text, a literary structure begins to emerge. What are these correspondences? First, Joseph fell asleep and entered a dream; this corresponds to Joseph waking up from his dream. Next, during the dream, an angel of the Lord (Gr.: angelos Kyriou) appeared to him “saying, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife.” This corresponds to Joseph obeying the command of that same angel of the Lord (Gr.: angelos Kyriou)  after he woke up and he “took Mary as his wife.” The word “take” appears in both corresponding verses. That word in Greek is paralambano meaning “aggressively taking from close alongside.” Joseph is portrayed here not as someone who gently acquiesced to the command of the angel, but rather as one who fully embraced the task assigned to him. What we’re observing in these correspondences is that the divinely-inspired author, in this case Matthew, has embedded a literary structure into the text of this passage about Jesus’ birth by first connecting what happened during Joseph’s dream to what happened after he awoke. And this literary arrangement points us toward other correspondences that ultimately lead toward the central meaning of the passage. 

As we continue reading, what is the next correspondence that we find? In verse 21, the angel told Joseph that Mary “will bear a son.” This corresponds to the birth of Jesus in verse 25 in which we read: “she bore a son.” The English “will bear” in verse 21 and “bore” in verse 25 derive from the same Greek root, tikto, meaning to bring forth or beget, essentially to give birth.

We now reach the next correspondence in this literary structure. After Joseph was told by the angel in verse 21 that Mary will bear a son, he was also told “to call (kaleo) his name (onoma) Jesus.” This corresponds to verse 25 in which, upon the birth of his son, Joseph “called (kaleo) his name (onoma) Jesus.” And this circles us back to something very Hebraic about this passage, because in Hebrew, names mean things.  A person’s Hebrew name reveals something very important about the person bearing the name–one’s name may point to a person’s origin, character and/or purpose. For instance, the name Adam means man but is very closely related to that from which man originated, the  Hebrew adamah, meaning ground for “the LORD God formed a man (adam) from the dust of the ground (adamah).” (Genesis 2:7) The Hebrew name of Abel is Hevel, meaning vapor.  Vapor does not attach to anything nor does it claim ownership of anything. That’s its “character.” This also being Abel’s character, he parted with the finest of his flocks when he made an offering to God. The Hebrew for Moses is Moshe, meaning to be “drawn out of water.” (Exodus 2:10) This not only looks back to his origin, having been drawn from the waters of the Nile River by Pharoah’s daughter, but also speaks to his divinely-set purpose, for it was Moses who would, as the agent of God, draw the nation of Israel from the waters of the parted sea, from enslavement to freedom.

One of the first usages of the Hebrew word for name, shem, is found Genesis 2:10, and reveals much about the meaning of the word. It reads: “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.”  In this verse, the word shem is not translated as name, but is translated as “there.” “But from there (shem) the rivers divided. . .” Shem is a source of something.

Turning to Jesus, his Hebrew name also means something as well as representing a source of something. That name is Yeshua, short for Yehoshua, meaning “YHVH saves.” This very meaning of the name, Jesus, sits near the center of Matthew’s literary structure, for in verse 1:21, when the angel of the Lord instructed Joseph to name his son Jesus, he adds: “For he will save his people from their sins.” This, in turn, corresponds to another name by which the Messiah is known–Immanuel–and the Hebrew meaning of which is given in verse 23, “God with us.” Based on the meaning of the name Jesus–in Hebrew, Yeshua–and the corresponding name in Matthew’s literary arrangement, Immanuel, the purpose for which Jesus was born is revealed, and that is that the “God with us” is the God who will “save His people from their sins.” When we celebrate Christmas–the birth of Jesus–we celebrate, first and foremost, this purpose.

Next, let’s look a little more deeply at the meaning of Jesus’ name. In Hebrew, his formal name is Yehoshua. That name is found 218 times in the Old Testament, mostly in reference to Joshua, the successor to Moses as the leader of Israel. Yeho is an abbreviated form of Yehovah, God’s most essential name, mentioned 6828 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and translated in most Christian bibles as LORD, in all capital letters. It is also a common prefix of Hebrew names of kings such as Yehoshaphat (YHVH judges) and Yehoiachin (YHVH establishes), and Yehonathan (YHVH gives), who we know as Jonathan, the eldest son of King Saul and dear friend of David.

The remainder of Jesus’ Hebrew name is based on the word, yasha, meaning to save. What exactly does it mean to save? Most people, when asked this question, immediately associate the word save with going to heaven or eternal life. Those are outcomes of salvation, but it is less important to know what the word has come to mean today than to know what it likely meant to the divinely-inspired author and the audience to whom he was speaking in his day. For it is through the text of the divinely-inspired author that we connect with the Divine Being. So, to discern the meaning of save, we need to look at the word itself in the context of ancient Hebrew. Yasha consists of three Hebrew letters: a yod (pronounced in English like a y), a shin (pronounced in English as a sh) and an ayin, which looks like an English y but has no verbal pronunciation. The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are considered divinely ordered and as such, have a particular purpose and meaning underlying the order in which they appear in a given word. In addition, each letter is considered to mean something relating to its ancient expression as a picture of something. Such is the case here. Pictographically, the yod resembles a hand–not surprisingly, the word for hand in Hebrew is yadah, or in its shortened form, yad, and in its most primitive meaning, denotes a deed or action. The shin resembles teeth, and its primitive meaning is to consume or destroy. The ayin was at one time drawn in the form of an eye–the word itself means eye–and the meaning therein is to look upon something. Taken together,  the yod is the hand that rescues, the shin is the teeth that destroy one’s enemy and the ayin is the eye of the rescued which gazes in reverence upon the one who rescues.

There are examples of the salvation “process” in both Testaments. One of the best is found at the end of Exodus 14. Here, as you well know, the Israelites were backed up against the sea with the Egyptian army, led by Pharaoh, in hot pursuit, seeking to destroy them. In verse 21, it reads that “Moses stretched out his hand (yad) over the sea” and the LORD parted the waters, providing safe passage for the nation of Israel. In verse 27, Moses again stretched out his hand, and the LORD caused the water to return, covering all the Egyptians so that in verse 28 it reads that “not even one of them remained.”  Not a single Egyptian who entered the sea survived. In verse 31, it reads “And Israel saw the great work the LORD did against the Egyptians and the people feared the LORD.” The word translated as work is in Hebrew, yad, that is, hand. The word translated as “feared” is yare, which in this context means “revered.” So the eyes of Israel gazed in reverence upon the great hand of the LORD that utterly destroyed their enemy. The hand that rescues, the destruction of the enemy, and the eye that gazes upon the rescuer, yod-shin-ayin, the letters of the word yasha, are all present in this passage. In verse 30, it states: The LORD saved Israel that day.” The word “saved” in that verse is based on the root word, yasha.

When Matthew, a 1st-Century Jew, likely authored his gospel in Hebrew and used the word yasha, this is what it meant to be saved. When he said that Jesus was born “to save his people from their sins,” it meant that by Jesus’ hand, his people would be rescued, by that same hand, the enemy, sin, that which aims to destroy us would itself be destroyed, and the people would look upon He who rescues with reverence as their savior. His very name, Yehoshua, given to him at birth, meant that he was the source of salvation for all mankind.  And he is the one we revere in this Christmas season.

END NOTES

[1] “Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could.”—Papias, mid-2^nd Century A.D.

“Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”—Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.)

“The first [gospel], composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew. . .for those who came to faith from Judaism—Origen, (first quarter of the third century)

These quotes were recorded by Eusebius, a Roman historian, in his book Ecclesiastical History. who would later become the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in 314 A.D. He made his own comment below:

“Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his gospel in writing in his native language.”

[2] In 1947, the year of Israel’s rebirth as a country, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in twelve caves near the site of Wadi Qumran in what is known as the West Bank today. Included among the findings were 179 manuscripts, some very fragmentary, of every Old Testament book except Esther. The vast majority were written in Hebrew. Also found were 10 non-Biblical texts specific to Qumran itself—a community that was wiped out by the Romans in 68 A.D. One was in Aramaic whereas the other nine were in Hebrew. 30% of the findings were  commentaries on the Bible known as pesharim—all of these were in Hebrew. The importance of the pesharim is that they were the texts used to educate the Israeli population—ancient schools in Israel did not have the Greek structure of language, mathematics and the sciences—they were instead primarily focused on the Scriptures as the subject of learning. Therefore, the common man would need to be able to read the pesharim in order to gain an education.

Archeologically speaking, coins and inscriptions point to the prevalent use of Hebrew in 1^st-Century Israel. Of the 215 types of coins minted in and around the time of Jesus, 99 are inscribed in Hebrew compared to just one in Aramaic. The rest were largely in Greek, owing to the rule of the Roman puppet, Herod. During periods of Jewish coins were minted, all inscribed in Hebrew. In terms of inscriptions, excavations beginning in 1968 at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem have yielded numerous inscriptions in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, but not a single one in Aramaic. Excavations conducted at Masada between 1963 and 1965 unearthed over 700 pottery fragments with inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. The ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.

During a recent  study on Judaism, a question arose regarding circumcision: why did God require it? We will carefully examine Scripture to attempt to discern the answer. Before that, in continuity with our study of Judaism, we’ll do a brief overview of circumcision among Jews today.

Although circumcision is practiced across all five, major Jewish denominations, it is not uniformly observed. Reform Judaism, for instance, encourages, but does not require, circumcision of non-Jewish converts.[1] Reconstructionist Jews advocate circumcision for converts, but often are lax in enforcing that standard. Secular Jews–50% of all Israeli Jews are secular and non-practicing–have no spiritual investment with religious rites surrounding circumcision, but in many cases, decide as a cultural matter to go forward with it as a ritual event.

Rabbinical literature attaches great importance to circumcision. In the Jerusalem Talmud–considered by the Rabbis to be the “oral law” spoken by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and transmitted by word of mouth throughout the ages–circumcision is said to be so important that it is “weighed against all the mitzvot” of the Torah.[2] Of course, it might be useful to know that there are 79 other instances in which various commands, practices and precepts are considered by themselves of equal importance to 612 commandments taken together. This includes the Shabbat, wearing of Tzitzit, the pursuit of peace, tsedakah (charity), and many others.

The word “circumcision” comes from Latin, circum (meaning “around”) and cædere (meaning “to cut”).  So, combined, it means to “cut around.” The Hebrew term most closely associated with the practice of circumcision among Jews is brit milah. Brit means covenant. Milah means cut.

We now turn to the Scripture to entertain the question we started with: why circumcision? If we accept that the Scripture is a portal connecting us with God, our task becomes “drawing out” the meaning of the words of Scripture that, in the end, may answer our question from God’s point of view. To that end, we have at our disposal, as independent readers of Scripture, a set of literary tools. The ones that are most visible to us in English are chiasms and parallelisms.  For a more thoroughgoing description of these types of literary arrangements, please reference Identifying Literary Structures in the Scriptures.

There are a number of Scripture passages in both Testaments touching on the subject of circumcision. Often, in tracing the meaning of a Biblical practice, we are wise to reference its Scriptural origin. This study will begin with Genesis 17, the first instance in which we find circumcision. The key verses in which God establishes the covenant of circumcision with the patriarch Abraham are 17:9-14. However, to capture the “context” of this covenant, let’s “widen” our reading, beginning with verse 17:3 and ending with the first line of verse 17.

³ Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,

⁴ “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
⁵ “No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

⁶ I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. ⁷ I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your ^[f]descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. ⁸ I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

⁹ God said further to Abraham, “Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. ¹⁰ This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.¹² And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. ¹³ A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. ¹⁴ But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

¹⁵ Then God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. ¹⁶ I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” ¹⁷ Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”

Looking at the beginning and ending of that passage, do you see items that repeat? Repeating words, phrases or ideas enable us to detect literary structures known as parallelisms, from which we will construct larger literary structures, chiasms.

We should immediately see “Abram fell facedown,” in line 3a vis-a-vis “Abraham fell facedown” in line 17a. This suggests the presence of a literary structure. Inside those verses, that is, after 3a and before 17a, are there other matching words, phrases and/or ideas?

What may next catch our attention is the “re-naming” of Abram to Abraham in verse 5 and Sarai to Sarah in verse 15b. There are two other similarities that follow this. Of Abraham, God states “I will make nations of you” in 6a paralleling “I will bless her (Sarah) so that she will be of nations.” (16b) Next, in 6b, we read of Abraham: “Kings will come from you.” Likewise, with Sarah, in 16b, we read: “Kings of peoples will come from her.”

We’re starting to connect the dots. Of Abraham and Sarah, nations will arise from them; kings will come from them. These declarations of God reveal His purpose for the couple. A genealogical path to David–and from there to Jesus–has been set into motion.

Returning to the literary structure, inside this matching set of parallelisms–Abraham falling facedown, the name changes, nations arising and kings coming forth–we find the key verses regarding circumcision. What in the world do any of these have to do with circumcision? It’s not immediately apparent, but the literary structure of the passage points to it.

Let’s focus on this aspect of naming. What is the significance of each change? The name, Abram, is a composite of two Hebrew words, ab meaning father, and rum meaning “to exalt.” So, taken together, we have “exalted father.” This word, rum, is used in the sense of lifting up, such as we find in Genesis 7:17–the “lifting up” of Noah’s Ark by flood waters, and in Genesis 14:22 in which Abram “lifts up” his hand to the LORD symbolic of swearing to an oath. The name, Abraham, includes ab meaning father, but combines it with an unused word–this has rendered the name of Abraham a bit mysterious. The latter half of verse 17:5 does say “I will make you a father of many nations.” The Hebrew for “father of many nations” is ab hamon goyim. This, we may surmise, connects to the meaning of the name, Abraham. And the name of Abraham is connected to the rise of nations and the coming forth of kings.

The names Sarai and Sarah derive from the same root, sar, meaning princess. Both names mean, essentially, the same thing. As with Abraham, the text associates the name of Sarah with the rise of nations and the coming forth of kings.

To see the importance to God of these name changes, and to connect them in some way with circumcision, we need to look back in Scripture to earlier points of time. Where do we find the first reference to naming?

We find the initial reference to naming in Genesis Chapter 2. Before going into that bit of detail, I believe it’s worthwhile to locate its context within the entire story of the creation of man. We may detect a pattern that will inform the naming discussion. This initial story begins in Genesis 2:7:  “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” God formed, that is, created man from the dust of the ground, that is, with the help of His creation. So, God was the primary actor here, the creation, secondary, that which was used by God to create a man. Is there a verse that parallels this? It turns out there is: Genesis 4:1, which I would consider the end of the story. “Now the man knew his wife, Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, ‘I have acquired a man with the LORD.'” In Hebrew, the word translated as “with” is et. When this word shows up in front of a noun, that noun becomes a direct object. Therefore, the LORD is the direct object and is One who Eve “used” to acquire Cain. Eve is the primary actor here, the subject, and the LORD is secondary, the object. In Genesis 2:7, God created a human being with the help of His creation, the earth. In Genesis 4:1, a human being created a human being with the help of God. In between, something has significantly shifted.

Between 2:7 and 4:1, another parallelism presents itself. In 2:25, we read: “The man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.” The Hebrew for “ashamed” is boosh, meaning “aware.” The man and his wife were not “aware” of their nakedness; they had no self-awareness. Is there a verse that parallels this. Yes, verse 3:7a. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked.” The first humans became self-aware.[3] This occurred immediately after eating the forbidden fruit. For discussion purposes, we will call everything that transpired before eating the “pre-tree” world and everything after eating the “post-tree” world. A literary structure has emerged.

Inside both the “pre-tree” and the “post-tree” worlds, there are naming events. Do you see them? In Genesis 2:19, we read:  “Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” At this point, Adam had no “self-awareness.” He existed in the pre-tree world. He only had “God-awareness.” So, whatever he called each animal “that was its name.” Those names aligned with the purpose and will of God–they would be unchanging. Adam was not acting independently of God. What is the other naming event?

We find that in Genesis 3:20. “Now the man called his wife’s name, Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.” In Hebrew, Eve is called Chava. It is a derivative of the word, chay, meaning life. She is called “em kol chay,” mother of all life. Where is it that we find this verse? In the post-tree world. It follows immediately after God has told Adam “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Is this what you’d say or do after hearing those words from the Creator of the Universe? When God spoke to Adam, Adam spoke back, almost as if he was some sort of equal. When God spoke to Abraham, Abraham fell facedown. Two verses later, God stated: “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.” Verses 2:19 and 3:20 form an antithetical parallelism–in 2:19 a human being names the animals according to the purpose for which God created them–“and that was its name.” In 3:20, a human being names another human being, but there is no qualifier, nothing saying “and that was its name.” In addition, God authorized Adam to name the animals, bringing them to him “to see what he would name them.” In verse 3:20, Adam just names Eve without prior authorization–he acts independently. God started as the sole Creator of the living: and the LORD “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” (Gen. 2:7) That was pre-tree. Now, a human being is the “mother of all the living,” post-tree. (Gen. 3:20) The verse following 3:20 is also very telling: “The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” Is there a prior verse that parallels that? Yes–verse 3:7: “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.” It happens that the making of loin coverings was the first and only act of “creating” done by human beings to this point in the narrative. And when Adam named Eve according to a purpose he assigned to her–“mother of all the living”–the very next thing God did was to create garments. If Adam and Eve purposed to be creators in their own right, to independently create something, and if the one and only thing they created was loin coverings, God was quick to assert His position as Creator of the universe, as the Creator of all, by producing His own coverings for the couple, by reasserting human dependence upon Him. This was not simply “gracious” as it is often sermonized; this was a reminder to the couple that God was the ultimate Creator, the sole independent Being in all existence. And just four verses later, the one whose name means “mother of all the living” looked at herself as the primary creator of a human being, an independent creator who used God for her purpose. A shift has occurred from God-centeredness to human centeredness. Wow.[4]

There is another incident, just before the time of Abraham, that embraces both the matter of names and the “shift” from God-centeredness to human-centeredness. Genesis Chapter 11 records the story of Babel. A question we might ask is why is this story found in this place of Scripture? Take note that just before that story, in Chapter 10, beginning in verse 21, we have the genealogy of Shem, the first son of Noah. Then comes the account of Babel. Immediately following that account is a second telling of the genealogy of Shem, beginning in verse 11:10. The latter genealogy leads all the way to Abram, something the version in chapter 10 does not do.

Shem, in Hebrew, means name. It consists of two Hebrew consonants, shin and mem. The first use of a word with only those two consonants is in Genesis 2:10: “Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.” Did you see it? The word spelled shin-mem, or  shem, translates the English “there.” “From ‘there’ it divided.” Shem, that is, name, references the source of something.  Looking back to Genesis 2:7, God was the “source” of life; in 3:20, Eve, being named by Adam, the “mother of all the living,” was deemed by him as the source of all life.

Is there something in the account of Babel mentioning the word, name? Yes, in verse 11:4: “They said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower (migdal from gadal meaning great) whose top (rosh) will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves (Heb.: la-nu) a name (shem).”  They, the men of Babel, set as their purpose to build a “great” tower to make for themselves a “name.”  This “name” they strived for was a “source” of self-identity. God frustrated these plans by confusing their language and scattering them across the face of the earth. The imagery here is that the great identity of man–this name–was dispersed over the earth, made small as if to vanish. The purpose of men was not in alignment with the purpose of God.

And what then did God do? After introducing the name of Abram within the second genealogy of Shem in Chapter 11, God converses with Abram in Chapter 12. The first genealogy of Shem represented a lineage operating according to man’s purpose and leading to Babel; the second was a lineage according to God’s purpose, leading to Abram, then to David, and ultimately to Christ. The first genealogy of Shem–and in Chapter 10, the other two sons of Noah–led to the mistaken idea that human beings could, of their own efforts, build a tower into heaven.  The second genealogy of Shem leads to Abram, through whom God will redirect his self-centered creation back to Himself.  And when God spoke to Abram, He told him: “And I will make you a great (gadal) nation, and I will bless you, and make your name (shem) great (gadal).” (12:2) It is not for man to purpose to build “great” towers to reach into heaven. Rather, it is for God to make “great” nations. It is not for men to make a name for themselves, to be the “source” of their own greatness–to make their own name great; rather it is God with whom the purpose of man is identified, and it is God with whom man is aligned. It is God, not man, who makes a name great.

How does this then find its way into understanding Genesis 17? When God renamed Abram and Sarai–humanly-given names–to Abraham and Sarah–names assigned by God Himself, it signaled His purpose to bring mankind back to Himself. Abraham and Sarah would become the “source” of nations and kings. A creation that dared to name its first woman, the mother of all the living, now would return its actual source of life, its Creator, the LORD. How do we know this? And does this, in some way, connect to circumcision?

There are two literary structures in Genesis 17 that point to this conclusion. Here is the first:

In line 7a, God proclaims a covenant between Himself and Abraham, including Abraham’s descendants: “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant (brit olam) between me and you and your descendants after you (beni ubeneka uben zaraka achareka) for the generations to come.” This parallels a statement in line 8a, “I will give to you and to your descendants after you (le-ka u-le-zaraka achareka), the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession (achuzzah olam);” This is a synthetic parallelism–line 7a offers a covenant in general terms, line 8a “amplifies” or “expands” on it by revealing the specifics. This reiterates the covenant regarding the inheritance of land promised to Abram in Chapters 12 and 15. In conjunction with this–and importantly just before the covenant of circumcision–are lines 7b and 8b, in which God asserts that He will be “your God and (God) to your descendants after you.”  God is bringing His people to a land where He will redirect them to Himself. It is through Abraham and Sarah, freshly renamed, that God will purpose a “new beginning” for mankind.

The second additional literary structure goes from verse 10 through verse 12. It centers specifically on circumcision, and like its previous counterpart, is located between the naming of Abraham and Sarah and God’s purpose for them.

Verses 10 and 12 are, like lines 7a and 8a, synthetic parallelisms. Verse 10 states that all males (kal zakar) will be circumcised. Verse 12 expands on that by stating that this will occur on the eighth day after birth[5], not only to Abraham’s offspring but also to those “who are not your offspring” but attached to the household. At the center of this chiasm, Abraham is specifically instructed to undergo circumcision “and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.” (v. 11)[6] The word in Hebrew for sign is oht, meaning a mark.[7] This same word is used in Genesis 4:15 in reference to Cain. It is also found in Genesis 9:12, 9:13 and 9:17, in reference to the rainbow that God would set in the sky as a “sign” of His covenant with Noah by which God promised never to destroy the earth by flood. So, if the rainbow is the sign of a covenant not to destroy the earth by flood, what is circumcision the sign for?

To discern a reason within Scripture, we begin with examining the word zakar.  In our last literary structure, this word was translated as “male” in both verses 10 and 12. And those verses stand in parallel with each other, each authorizing/commanding the practice of circumcision. The Biblical author could have used the word, ish or adam, to refer to a man, or ben to refer to a son, but instead used zakar–male. The etymology or origin of this word traces back to the act of remembering, also zakar in Hebrew. This is true of a comparable word in Arabic, another language belonging to a larger circle of people known as Semites, descendants of Shem, the son of Noah, whose name, in turn, means name. The act of remembering, from the standpoint of its original meaning, is an act of pointing toward something that is not physically present.

Circumcision is intimately tied to the act of remembering. The mark of circumcision, every time it’s seen, points to something not physically present–alas, to Someone not physically present–to God. This is a means by which God “redirects” man to Himself. Although the sign of circumcision resides on the instrument of a man’s creativity, it serves as a reminder that even he who can create here on earth was himself created by Someone else, the LORD our God.

ENDNOTES

[1] As early as the second century B.C., Jewish sages differed on the necessity of circumcision during the conversion process.  The Talmud records that R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus required both circumcision and immersion in a mikveh; R. Joshua, on the other hand, only required immersion. 19th-century Reformers advocated to prohibit circumcision on the grounds that it was both unhealthy and barbaric, an unnecessary vestige of an ancient, outdated practice.  (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

[2] “The covenant of circumcision is of such great import that its observance takes precedence even over the Shabbat. This is perhaps due to the fact that by performing circumcision one actively accepts the very covenant one passively demonstrates by not doing the work activities (“melachot”) of Shabbat. Indeed, whereas one rests on Shabbat to identify with the Creator, so one performs brit milah to identify one’s active partnership with the Creator.”   (Equal to All the Mitzvot in the Torah, Rabbi Mois Navon, Aish.com)

[3] This is further indicated by the question of God to Adam in v. 11: “Who told you that you were naked?” This would indicate that Adam would not have been previously aware of his nakedness unless God told him.

[4] In Genesis 2:2-3, it states that God rested from His work. The Hebrew used here for work is melachah. In Genesis 2:15, it states that God took Adam and put him in the garden to work and keep it. The word, work, in Genesis 2:15 is avodah. Melachah is used in Hebrew to describe “creative” work whereas avodah is simple laboring or tending. Man was, therefore, not placed on Earth to independently create, but rather to tend the work of his Creator.  Jesus said: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38)

[5] There is no explanation in Scripture for performing the circumcision on the 8th day. In Rabbinical literature, it was held that a Sabbath must pass before circumcision could occur. Therefore, if a baby boy was born on the Sabbath, it would be eight days before a full Sabbath had passed. It is reasoned that “the holiness of the Sabbath comes directly and exclusively from God. . .once the baby has experienced the ‘holiness’ of the Shabbos, he may enter into the covenant of the Jewish people.” (www.aish.com/ci/sam/48964686.html)

[6] Jewish tradition holds that “Adam was born without a foreskin. Only when he sinned did he create a barrier between himself and God and at that point developed a foreskin. The removal of t he foreskin represents the physical act by which man attempts to come close to God again.” (www.aish.com/ci/sam/48964686.html)

[7] R. Hirsch (Ber. 17:10, p.301) explains that the sign (“oht”) of circumcision symbolizes complete submission to the authority of God, such total compliance being indicative of serving God in awe (“yareh”). Hence, the relationship occurs between this response and Abraham falling facedown.

One of the primary critiques of Catholicism issued by Protestants is that Catholic parishioners are often discouraged from reading and interpreting the Scriptures on their own. The critique contends that the priests handle this on behalf of the flock. A Protestant who simply carries a Bible around mirrors the Catholic he critiques if he relies completely on his pastor to read the text for him and supply all of the interpretation. If self-reading/interpretation is the goal, then training in how to read the Scripture is essential for establishing our ability to interpret it.

The Old Testament is considered to be roughly 75% Hebraic poetry. There are literary features of Hebrew poetry that escape the eye of even the most experienced English reader who does not have a knowledge of the Hebrew language underlying his English translation. One such feature is an alphabetical acrostic. This format provides that each successive line, half-line or verse begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet in alphabetical order. Poetically, this is a method of saying that the text completely covers everything in terms of its topic from A to Z, so to speak, or in Hebrew, from Aleph to Tav. Psalm 111, for instance, begins each of its 22 lines with one of the 22 Hebrew letters in the order in which they appear in the Hebrew alphabet. Proverbs 31:10-31 is often called “The Excellent Wife.” It consists of 22 verses, each one beginning with one of the 22 Hebrew letters, again in order.

Alliteration derives from the Latin, “latira,” meaning “letters of alphabet.” An alliteration is a stylistic device in which a number of words, found closely together in a sentence, either begin with the same letter or letters or with the same sound. In the rhyme, Better Botter by Carolyn Wells, we have a tongue-twisting example:   “Betty Botter bought some butter, but she said, this butter’s bitter; if I put it in my batter, it will make my batter bitter, but a bit of better butter will make my bitter batter better…” In English, Scripture’s first few words are “In the beginning, God created. . .” (Gen. 1:1) However, in Hebrew, it is: “Bereishit bera Elohiym. . .” Bereishit and bera both begin with the letters bet (the Hebrew B) and reish (the Hebrew R), and thus are alliterative.

Another feature of Hebraic poetry that is slightly easier to discern in English translations, but still largely hidden from view, are wordplays, including word puns.[1] A word pun is a play on words in which, for instance, similar sounding words (with similar roots) repeat with different meanings.[2] It is common, for instance, in the Hebrew Scriptures, for the names of Biblical characters to be fashioned after words that give meaning to the nature of the character himself. For instance, Adam is taken from the word, adamah, meaning “ground” since he was formed from the dust of the “ground” (adamah). (Gen. 2:7)[3] Eve’s Hebrew name, Chavah, derives from the word, chay, meaning life, “because she was the mother of all living.” (Gen. 3:20)[4] In Genesis 2:25, we learn that the first man and woman were naked–arumim–and in the very next verse, the snake is described as “clever”–arum. Arumim and arum are similar sounding words built on the same root word, arom (spelled ayin-reish-mem), but meaning different things in the context of the Biblical text. Moving forward into the Genesis story, we have Isaac, named Yitzhak in Hebrew, which is a play on the verb tzachak, meaning to laugh, for when God told Abraham of his 90-year-old wife, Sarah, that “kings of peoples will come from her, Abraham fell facedown and laughed (tzachak).” (Gen. 17:16-17)[5] Later in the story of Isaac, the wordplay of Isaac to laughing, or in Hebrew, yitzhak to tzachak, continues. Isaac, like his father, Abraham, was guilty of telling people that Rebekah, his wife, was his sister.  In Genesis 26, Isaac made this claim to the people of Gerar. (Gen. 26:7) In the NIV version of events, their king, Abimelech, “looked down from a window and saw Isaac caressing Rebekah his wife.” (Gen. 26:8) The root of the word translated as caressing is tzachak. So, in Hebrew, Isaac caressing reads “Yitzhak tzachak,” or Laughing was “laughing” with Rebekah, his wife. In this case, the NIV translators spotted this play on words, and translated the word tzachak to mean “caressing” or an act of lovemaking, a potentially better fit for the context of the story.

Another word pun occurs during the story of the person of Joseph. In Genesis Chapter 40, two servants of the king of Egypt, a cupbearer and a baker, were thrown into the prison where Joseph was also confined. There, they both had dreams. Joseph was called upon to interpret them. The cupbearer’s dream involved three branches. “This is what it means,” Joseph said to him. “The three branches are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position, and you will put Pharaoh’s cup in his hand, just as you used to do when you were his cupbearer.” (Gen. 40:12-13) The chief baker’s dream involved three baskets of bread.  “This is what it means,” Joseph said. “The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head from you (may-ah-leh-cha) and impale your body on a pole.” (Gen. 40:18-19) Did you notice the repeating words in verses 13 and 19? In Hebrew, “Pharaoh will lift up your head” is “yissa Paroh et rosheka“–in verse 13 indicating a good result, and in verse 19, a bad one.

Hebrew word puns can also be discerned in certain books of the New Testament, particularly the Book of Matthew. Although there are no existing Hebrew manuscripts that can be traced back to the 1st Century C.E., there are many who contend that the Book of Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew language. The basis for this understanding is the testimony of a number of early Church fathers.

“Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could.”—Papias, mid-2^nd Century A.D.

“Matthew, indeed, produced his gospel written among the Hebrews in their own dialect.”—Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.)

“The first [gospel], composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew. . .for those who came to faith from Judaism”—Origen, (first quarter of the third century)

These quotes were recorded by Eusebius, a Roman historian, in his book Ecclesiastical History. who would later become the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in 314 A.D. He made his own comment below:

“Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his gospel in writing in his native language.”

Among the later Church fathers (post-Nicean from 325 A.D.), we have the following:

“They have the entire Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. It is carefully preserved by them as it was originally written, in Hebrew script.”—Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies.

“Matthew was the first in Judea to compose the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words. . .Who it was that later translated it into Greek is no longer known with certainty. Furthermore, the Hebrew text itself is still preserved in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus assembled with great care.”—Jerome, De Viris Inlustribus 3

Discerning Hebrew word puns in the Matthean text lends strength to this position. Here are several examples:

1) When Jesus healed a paralytic in Chapter 9, we read:  “When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matt. 9:8) The Greek words used for “saw” (idontes) and “were afraid” (ephobethesan) have no apparent connection to each other as figures of speech. However, when the verse is translated into Hebrew, those two words, saw and were afraid, are found to be homonyms, both pronounced “vayir’u,” though originating from two different root words, ra-ah (r-h) for saw, and yare (y-r) for afraid.

2) In Matthew Chapter 3, when John the Baptist “saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing,” he made a declaration to them, part of which states: “And do not think to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (Matt. 3:9) In Greek, the word used for stones is lithon, and the word for children is tekna. There is no phonetic or word play connection between those words. However, when translated into Hebrew, those words become ebenim (stones) and benim (children). They are closely related phonetically, and in fact, rhyme, connecting the meaning of stones and children in a very intimate and “easy to remember” way that the corresponding Greek words do not.

3) In Matthew 16:18, we have a Greek word play:  “And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Petros is a Greek name meaning rock or small stone, and petra also means rock, as in a large rock. Both words are similar sounding and have a similar meaning. At the same time, there is also a word play in the Hebrew translation: :  “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (eben) I will build (ebneh) my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” In Psalm 118:22, we see a similar pun: “The stone (eben) that the builders (bonim) rejected has become the cornerstone.” (eben/bonim) This word pun is repeated by Jesus in Matthew 21:42: “Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone (eben) that the builders (bonim) rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?” The corresponding Greek for stone (lithon) and “those building” (hoi oikodomountes) or builders (oikodomos) are not word plays.

4) In Mark, Chapter 4, we read: “The Kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.” (Mark 4:26) In Greek, we have the following words: anthropos (man), bale (scatter), sporon (seed) and ges (ground). None of these Greek words relate to each other phonetically or as figures of speech. In Hebrew, however, we see two pairs of very similar words: adam–man links to adamah–ground; zara–scatter and zera–seed. The second pair is encased within the first pair. Together we have: adam–zara–zera–adamah.

Parallelisms

Other literary features are much more easily identified by the English reader. Among these are parallelisms. A parallelism displays a relationship of two or more lines/verses of text to each other. Thoughts repeat, sometimes in the same way–a synonymous parallelism, other times in a contrasting way–an antithetical parallelism, other times the second line reinforces/adds to the first or explains the who, what, where, why, or how of the first–a synthetic parallelism. There are other types of parallelisms–climactic, eclectic, emphatic–but for now, the first three types are the forms we’ll be dealing with. Here are some examples:

“There is no speech, nor are there words.” (Ps. 19:3) (Synonymous)

” The law (torah) of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”  (Psalm 19:8) (Synonymous)

“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” (Ps. 119:105)   (Synonymous)

“Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words.” (Gen. 4:23) (Synonymous)

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1) (Synonymous)

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”  (Eccl. 10:2) (Antithetical)

“He who keeps the commandment keeps his soul, But he who is careless of conduct will die.” (Prov. 19:16) (Antithetical)[6]

“A time to be born, and a time to die;  (Eccl. 3:2a) (Antithetical)
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted.” (Eccl. 3:2b) (Antithetical)[7]

“Fire goes before Him, and burns up His adversaries round about.” (Ps. 97:3)  (Synthetic–what fire does)

“The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable –how much more so when brought with evil intent!” (Prov. 21:27) (Synthetic–evil intent adds to wickedness)[8]

In Part 2, we will move on to the study of chiasms.

ENDNOTES

[1] In ancient Israel, and up until the invention of the printing press in the Renaissance period, the written words of the Scripture were largely unavailable to the masses. Most people throughout their generations received the word by oral transmission. “Then Moses commanded them, saying, “At the end of every seven years, at the time of the year of remission of debts, at the Feast of Booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing.” (Deut. 31:10-11) The messages of the Gospels were shared orally for decades before they were committed to writing. The word pun, in light of this, was an extremely useful method for securing the remembrance of the Scriptures that were only read or shared by voice.

[2] Examples of puns in English: “Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.” “When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds.” (The word “four” is a homonym of “for” but means something different. “A chicken crossing the road is truly poultry in motion.” Poultry sounds like poetry, but poetry is not like a chicken.

[3]” And God formed the man (adam) from the dust of the ground (adamah).” Gen. 2:7

[4] “The man called his wife’s name Eve (Chavah), because she was the mother of all living (chay).” (Gen. 3:20)

[5] Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed (tzachak), and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”  And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac (Yitzhak); and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. (Gen. 17:17-19)

[6] Charles Dickens also used a string of antithetical parallelisms to open his novel, A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way. . .”

[7] Each half-line of Eccl. 3:2a and 3:2b is antithetical to its corresponding half (born/die, plant/pluck), but each line, taken as a whole, is synonymous to its corresponding line.

[8] ⁶ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you had known me, you would have known my Father also, From now on you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7) (Synthetic–how do we come to the Father? We come to know the Father through knowing his Son, Jesus)