Language and Idiom

I'm a keen user of bible study software. I use a combination of Libronix' Logos 3.0, Wordsearch 7.0, and e-sword.

One of the things I have noticed particularly since studying the Talmud and other Jewish writings has been the extremely well developed original language tools. I have the Scholar's Library edition of Logos and the dictionary meaning of words and an analysis of how it has been translated in various parts of the bible are just a few clicks away. They are good, very good. However I recently came across by a book by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard called "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus".

Bivin was founder and director of the Jerusalem Perspective and number of the Jerusalem School Synoptic Studies a think tank with other Christian and Jewish Scholars. The book has been endorsed by notable Jewish scholar David Flusser. Blizzard Was adjunct assistant professor at the Centre for huddle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.

Bivin and Blizzard point out that Jesus uses many Hebrew idioms in his everyday speech. Unfortunately idioms by their very nature are difficult to Understand outside their historical and cultural contexts. How can non-English speakers accurately translate phrases such as "let's get cracking", "I like the cut of his jib", or "sailing too close to the wind"? Similarly the English translator and reader of the Hebrew scriptures faces a similar challenge.

Unfortunately our early church fathers took a strongly anti-Jewish stance. So successful were they that by the time of Constantine church creeds included Vows to reject all the "Jewish" festivals, and even to avoid dining at the same able as a Jew. Needless to say with such thinking becoming widely held, a schism between Jewish and Gentile society became entrenched. Without contact with Jewish society, Christian theologians and translators toiled without even knowing that Jewish idioms were used by Jesus and attempt to infer the meaning of his Words; and as Bivin and Blizzard sadly illustrate, with sometimes absurd results.

I was interested to discover that the "good eye" and "bad eye" in Matthew 6.22-23 means a "generous heart" and a "miserly spirit" respectively. Yet I have encountered many a commentator's writings concerning the possible meaning of this passage, usually developing an explanation that differs markedly from the theme of generosity.

Did I say that the bible scholar is faced with a challenge in correctly translating scripture without the benefit of a thorough understanding of Jewish culture and idioms? I would venture to say that the task is impossible without contact with Jewish society and literature.

Bivin and Blizzard give a number of examples to illustrate their point. Here is one: "Set his face to..." and "his face was set toward..."(9:51) When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
(9:52) And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
(9:53) but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. (Luke 9.51-53)

Translators have read into this passage that Jesus had moments of misgivings or even doubts about going to Jerusalem. But the phrase he "set his face to go to..." and "his face was set to..." has no such connotation as Hebrew idioms . They should have been translated as "he was travelling to..."

Clearly the risk of error is great when translating outside of the Jewish context and therefore it would not be surprising to find theology based on studying flawed translations would also be in error.

They look at a number of theological positions that have gained prominence but in their opinion are built on mistranslations: Pacifism; Torah abrogation; giving without discernment; are all examples offered,

If even half were true, then many of the things we have taken for granted as accepted tenets of Christianity must be questioned.

-------------------------------
Uploaded with my Apple Newton

Written Torah and Oral Torah

In most legal systems, there is a written code of law and an accompany body of regulation that deals with situations not envisaged by the original statutes.

The English Common Law system is a good example. Parliament sets out the Statutes and the Judges develop common law principles and precedents that guide real-life application.

The Torah is structured in a similar way. It too has a written component, being the Pentateuch and establishes a hierarchy of courts of elders for adjudicating real-life situations, by applying the commandments. Over time, a system of rulings, precedents, and principles were developed. This has been captured by the Oral Torah and preserved in the Talmudic writings. The highest court of elders became known as the Sanhedrin in Christ's day.

As time passed, a system of principles were developed to resolve contradictions between different commandments; between commandments and Oral Torah rulings; and between different Oral Torah rulings.

For example, Oral Torah could never abrogate Written Torah. This principle is applied by Jesus in the dispute over Corban and the Commandment to honour one's father and mother (which had come to mean to provide for them in their old age). Another is the principle of preserving life as taking precedence over any other commandment. Jesus applies this principle when healing on the Sabbath. A third principle involves the infrequent taking precedence over the frequent. An example of this is illustrated when Yom Kippur (a fast) falls on a Sabbath (a feast). Since a Sabbath can be celebrated next week then the fast should be observed as it won't roll around for another year. Interestingly this principle was applied in attempting to rebut Jesus over Sabbath healing: "Why couldn't you have done it tomorrow?"

Thus many of the disputes between the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduccees and other religious leaders can be understood once this framework is grasped.

Unfortunately, the Oral Torah (idiomatically called the "yoke") became elaborate and complex. Rulings were made for almost every part of the minutiae of life. Jesus proclaimed a revisionist view of the Oral Torah (or Halachah), disputing with the Hebrew authorities that its complexity had created a barrier to salvation (Matthew 23.4, 13). This is what he meant in Matthew 11.28. His "Yoke" was light compared to the conventional "Yoke" of the day.

Interestingly, Jesus never disputed the Sanhedrin's right to make rulings (idiomatically called "binding and loosing"), in fact, he encouraged obedience to them (Matthew 23.1-3) but debated with them from within the framework of principles for resolving contradictions between the Commandments and/or Oral Torah rulings.

Thus if we believe in observing the Written Torah and the Written Torah establshes the authority of the hierarchy of courts and the creation of Oral Torah then we have to recognise the authority of Oral Torah. However Jesus' example shows us that we can abrogate the Oral Torah when it contravenes the framework for assessing how or if it should be applied.

Legalism: Part 1

When the subject of Torah observance arises, the long shadow of Legalism looms large in the imagination. What is legalism?

Wikipedia describes it thus: "Legalism, in Christian theology, is a pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on law or codes of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigor, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law over the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption."

For many it has come to mean observing any set of rules without first being moved by the Holy Spirit. In practice it could mean that nothing should be done unless one feels like it. Merely reading and obeying becomes legalism.

What does Jesus mean in Matthew 7 when he says:

"(7:22) Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
(7:23) Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "?

Surely if people are prophecying, delivering people from demons and performing miracles in the name of Jesus then God's favour must be with them?

Actually, the bible warns against those who perform miracles and yet lead people to follow other Gods:

(13:1) If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
(13:2) and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
(13:3) you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
(13:4) It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. (Deuteronomy 13.1-4)

How can one be guilty of leading people to worship other Gods? By portraying God as something he isn't and thereby causing people to follow a "false" God. Verse 4 gives a clue as to what it means to follow the one true God:

* Keep and obey His commands (i.e. the Torah);
* Serve God; and
* Hold fast to Him.

Is a God who does not require torah observance, fundamentally different from the one presented by bible? If the answer is yes, then does worshipping such a God constitute worshipping a false God? If yes, then could one be teaching idolatry by promoting such a God?

This is what Jesus says about obedience:

"Why do you call me, `Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? (Luke 6.46)
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." (John 14.21)There is no mention of waiting for the Spirit to "move one" to obedience. Being aware of God's commands should be sufficient.

Objections to Torah Observance: "The Torah is for Israel" Part 2

Photo by Asafantman

The bible is clear that the Torah and its commandments are part of the Covenant between God and the people of Israel at Mt Sinai through Abraham, Mose and David.

Does that mean that the Torah is only for those who are ethnically Jews or who have become Jews by virtue of a circumcision or conversion to Judaism?

According to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the admissability of non-Jews (or Gentiles) was discussed at length and the minimum observance necessary to ensure that they would not be rejected out of hand was determined. The Apostles reasoned that this would allow Gentiles to enter the Synagogue where "Moses" (or the Torah) would be taught to them. The Book of Acts goes on to tell the story of Paul as he established new churches with mixed Jewish and Gentile membership.

The Epistles address some of the theological controversies that arose as the new believers sought to reconcile traditional interpretations of the Torah in the new light of Christ. And what do these Epistles say regarding the status of Gentile believers?

Clearly they recognise that Gentile believers are:

1. Children of God through the Spirit of Adoption (Romans 8.15)


2. Counted as the "Seed of Abraham" (Galatians 3.29)


3. Joint Heirs of the Promises given to Moses, Abraham and David (Romans 8.17).


4. That the Gentiles and the (Torah Observant) Jews are to become One New Man under Christ (Ephesians 2.11-22).

Objections to Torah Observance: The New Covenant: What is it? Part 2

Photo by SandCastleMatt

In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul says

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 gNot that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but hour sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as iministers of jthe new covenant, not kof the letter but of the 1Spirit; for lthe letter kills, mbut the Spirit gives life.

Glory of the New Covenant7 But if nthe ministry of death, owritten and engraved on stones, was glorious, pso that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will qthe ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry rof righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, swe use great boldness of speech— 13 unlike Moses, twho put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at uthe end of what was passing away. 14 But vtheir minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless wwhen one turns to the Lord, xthe veil is taken away. 17 Now ythe Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is zliberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding aas in a mirror bthe glory of the Lord, care being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as 2by the Spirit of the Lord.

(The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. 2 Co 3:4-18)

This passage is often used as a proof text for justifying why the New Covenant does away with the Old Covenant. After it all it kills, right? Yes, it does, if you transgress its regulations then yes, death is the ultimate penalty. This is confirmed in the New Testament where Paul says that the wages of sin are death (Romans 6.23).

But a careful reading of verses 12-18, reveals that the difference between the person under the Old Covenant and the person under the New Covenant is the "veil" which renders the Old Covenant reader unable to fully comprehend the meaning of the Scripture. The New Covenant reader has the veil lifted by Christ. What is common to both readers is that it is the same Torah that both are reading (remember there was no New Testament in Jesus' day). And why would the New Covenant reader be reading the Old Testament at all, unless it was to understand God and how one should live as a citizen of His Kingdom? And how should one live as a Kingdom citizen? By obeying His commandments (laws) as they are set out in the Torah.

g [John 15:5]
h 1 Cor. 15:10
i 1 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 3:7
j Jer. 31:31; Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20
k Rom. 2:27
1 Or spirit
l [Rom. 3:20]; Gal. 3:10
m John 6:63; Rom. 8:2
n Rom. 7:10
o Ex. 34:1; Deut. 10:1
p Ex. 34:29
q [Gal. 3:5]
r [Rom. 1:17; 3:21]
s Acts 4:13, 29; 2 Cor. 7:4; Eph. 6:19
t Ex. 34:33–35; 2 Cor. 3:7
u Rom. 10:4; [Gal. 3:23]
v Is. 6:10; 29:10; Acts 28:26; Rom. 11:7, 8; 2 Cor. 4:4
w Ex. 34:34; Rom. 11:23
x Is. 25:7
y [1 Cor. 15:45]
z John 8:32; Gal. 5:1, 13
a 1 Cor. 13:12
b [2 Cor. 4:4, 6]
c [Rom. 8:29, 30]
2 Or from the Lord, the Spirit

Objections to Torah Observance: "The Torah is for Israel" Part 1

Photo by Oaxoax

Many Christians believe that Torah Observance is for "Israel" or Jews alone.

Why? Because they believe that through Jesus, Christians are saved by grace and not through their actions. Grace is God's unmerited favour and it is through God's grace that "he gave his only son to die so that any one who believes in Jesus would have everlasting life" (John 3.16). Thus it is reasoned that if Jews don't believe in Christ then the only path to salvation for them is slavish obedience to all 613 commandments.

Clearly, no one has ever perfectly observed all 613 commandments so this was why the system of sacrifices was conceived to atone for all the sins of Israel and it was under this same system that Christ gave His life for all. But if you read the commandments carefully, would it surprise you to learn that none of the sacrifices can atone for intentional sin? Yes, its true (see Leviticus 4.2). Jews recognise this too. The Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash comments on Leviticus 4 says:

"The Torah now lists offerings that are required in order to atone for sins, in contrast to the offerings of the previous three chapters that one brings voluntarily in order to elevate oneself spiritually.

These offerings cannot atone for sins that were committed intentionally. No offering is sufficient to remove the stain of sin committed intentionally. No offering is sufficient to remove the stain of such sinfulness; that can be done only through repentance and a change of the attitudes that made it possible for the transgressor to flout God's will."

You may have thought that repentance is a Christian message. Actually the theme of repentance is there in the Old Testament and its not a New Testament invention.

Thus the sacrificial system atones for unintentional sin. Therefore Christ died for our unintentional sins. And for His sacrifice to have any validity for the Christian the Torah must also remain in effect. The only remedy for our intentional sins is repentance.

The Hebrew word for Repentance means to turn around; i.e. that is to change direction by 180 degrees. The concept of Repentance is intimately connected to one's actions and not just to one's attitudes and beliefs.

Repentance from what? Our sins. But how can we know what is sin? The Hebrew word for Sin means to "miss the mark" in English. But what sets the Mark or Standard of Behaviour? The Bible or Torah defines it. Therefore when our actions fall below its standards, we sin. Thus Torah Observance is the way we should live under God.

Next time, I will argue that Christians are also subject to the Torah because they are also a part of Israel.

Objections to Torah Observance: The New Covenant: What is it? Part 1

Photo by Billy Reed

The idea of the New Covenant comes from Jeremiah 31 (NKJV):

• A covenant unlike the covenant made when God led them out of Egypt, the covenant that Israel broke (vv31-2); and
  
• He will put His Law in their minds and write it upon Israel’s hearts (v33); and
  
• He will be their God (v33); and
  
• They will be His people (v33); and
  
• His people will no longer need to be teach each other about God (v34); and
  
• He will forgive them their sins (v34); and
  
• God will no longer remember their sins (v34); and
  
• God will not reject Israel: If the laws of God cease to exist, so will the nation of Israel (v36); and if one can fathom creation then God would also reject Israel (v37); and
  
• Jerusalem will be restored and the perimeter of the restored city is set out (v38-40).

This passage leads to further questions:

1. Clearly, Israel is the focus of the covenant; who is Israel?
2. Has the New Covenant been fulfilled? Is it yet to come? Has it started coming about?
3. Has Jerusalem been rebuilt?

Something else to note: the Hebrew word usually translated as "new" can be translated as "renewed" (see Strongs H2319 from H2318).

Is there such a thing as a "new covenant"; could God have only intended a "renewed" one?