I wanted more information related to the Hebraic Perspective of our Bible. This lead me to a book writtened by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard entitled Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. I find the topic both fascinating, interesting and related to our life studies in regards to understanding Scripture. I want to share this information and gather your thoughts on the subject.
Hebraic Perspective
Robert L. Lindsey wrote in the introduction that his own encounter with the strong Hebraism of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke came several years ago when he had the occasion to attempt to translate the Gospel of Mark to Hebrew. Lindsey writes, “What first caught my attention was the very Hebraic word order of the Greek text of Mark. Usually I only need to find the correct Hebrew equivalents to the Greek words in order to give good sense and understanding to the text. In other words, the syntax or word relationships were just such as one would expect in Hebrew.”
Lindsey continues “All this was particularly surprising to me, for I remembered the problems I had as a student studying classical Greek in trying to juggle the words of Xenophon, Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato into the patterns of word order the English demands. What difficulty I had making those ancient Greeks speak English! And now, translating New Testament Greek into Hebrew, I was finding Greek written as if it were Hebrew.”
“The answer is that the original gospel that form the basis for the Synoptic Gospels was first communicated, not in Greek or Aramaic, but in the Hebrew language. Since the Synoptic Gospels are derived from an original Hebrew text, we are constantly "bumping into" Hebrew expressions or idioms which are often meaningless in Greek or in translations from the Greek.
The difficulty arises because many of the sayings of Jesus are actually Hebrew idioms. An idiom is "an expression in the usage of a language, that is particular to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meaning of its elements." Some examples of English idioms would be: "Killing time," or "Hit the ceiling," or "Eat your heart out." Many of the idioms that Jesus used in his teaching can be understood only when properly interpreted in a Hebrew context. We tend to forget that the Old Testament comprises approximately 78% of the biblical text, and the New Testament only 22%. When we add the highly Hebraic portions of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1:1-15:35, approximately 43% of the New Testament) to the Old Testament, the percentage of biblical material originally written in Hebrew rises to 88%. Not more than 12% of the entire Bible was originally written in Greek. The assumption that the entire New Testament was originally communicated in Greek has led to a considerable amount of misunderstanding on the part of scholars and lay persons alike.”
The book starts with the…
Examination of the Aramaic Theories
It is interesting that the same individuals who espouse the inerrancy of the Scriptures will take a specific passage in the New Testament that refers to Jesus speaking Hebrew (Acts 26:14), or Paul speaking Hebrew (Acts 21:40), and say, "that means Aramaic, and not Hebrew.) The " Aramaic Theory" has so heavily influenced Biblical scholarship that even those who should be most capable of working with the Biblical text, namely, some Bible translators, have translated “Aramaic” when the original text specifically states "Hebrew."
Since the majority of scholars have favored Aramaic origins for the Synoptic Gospels, there must be strong reasons for their acceptance of this theory. But, when one examines the evidence one learns that there are no strong reasons available to support an Aramaic origin apart from the appearance of certain Aramaic, or what often seems to be Aramaic words or phrases scattered throughout the New Testament text, particularly the text of the Gospels. In fact, it is much stronger evidence against the theory of Aramaic origins.
A revolution is taking place in our understanding of the New Testament. With the rebirth of Israel in 1947-1948 came the dramatic discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These priceless, ancient manuscripts, followed a few years later by the discovery of the Bar-Chochba letters, became vital contributions to a fuller understanding of the New Testament writings.
Many scholars in Israel are now convinced that the spoken and written language of the Jews in the land of Israel at the time of Jesus was indeed Hebrew; and that the Synoptic Gospels were derived from original Hebrew sources. The scholars, fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, have proposed impressive solutions to major problems of New Testament interpretation. Important discoveries which they have made serve to illuminate the very Hebraic style of speech used by Jesus and his followers, and to make possible a more accurate translation of the Gospels. With a new understanding of the language Jesus spoke, they are now able to correct numerous mistranslations in the English text of the New Testament.
Jehoshua M Grintz wrote an article entitled "Hebrew as The Spoken and Written Language in The Last Days of The Second Temple" (Grintz 1960). On the basis of his study of Matthew's Gospel and other literature contemporary with the Gospels, Grintz asserted that "Hebrew was the only literary language of that time; and to this alone we can attribute the fact that the new sect of 'unlearned an ignorant men' (Acts 4:13) set out to right its main book, intended for its Jewish members, in this language" (Grintz 1960:46).
Grintz further emphasizes: "Moreover, Hebrew was then the main vehicle of speech in Jewish Palestine, or at least in Jerusalem and Judea." He provides evidence for this statement with a relevant story, narrated in the Talmud (Nedarim 66b) about the difficulties and Aramaic speaking Jew from Babylon had in communicating with his Jerusalemite wife.
Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem claims there are hundreds of Semitisms (Semitic idioms) in the Synoptic Gospels which could only be Hebrew, but there are no Semitisms which could only be Aramaic without also being good Hebrew.
Dr. Moshe Bar-Asher a foremost Aramaic scholar at the Hebrew University, says that he believes the Synoptic Gospels go back to a Greek translation of an original Hebrew (not Aramaic!) document.
Professor Frank Cross, of Harvard University, is probably the leading living authority on the handwriting of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Professor Cross has stated that by observing the handwriting of the various scribes who copy the scrolls over the centuries at Qumran, yet can be seen that the dominant language of Palestine, beginning about 130 B.C., was Hebrew. since, after 130 B.C., the scribes of Qumran no longer made mistakes when copying Hebrew texts, Cross determined that their principal language was Hebrew, and that they had an inferior knowledge of Aramaic grammar and syntax.
An impressive amount of extra biblical evidence points to the use of Hebrew in the first century Israel: the testimony of the Church fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, coins, and inscriptions from the first century B.C.- A.D., the writings of Josephus, and Rabbinic literature. Even at Masada, Herod's stronghold overlooking the Dead Sea, archaeologists excavated from 1963 to 1965 under the direction of Professor Yigael Yadin. The epi- graphical evidence is staggering: fragments of 14 scrolls, over 4000 coins, and more than 700 ostraka (inscribed pottery fragments) in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Here too, the ratio of Hebrew to Aramaic exceeds nine to one.
There is also textual evidence to prove that Jesus delivered his parables in Hebrew. Note how Hebraic they are, as illustrated by the parable of the prodigal son:
And his father saw him, and had compassion, 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 [literally, "give," a Hebrew idiom] a ring
on his hand and sandals on his feet, and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and make merry" (Luke 15:20, 22, 23).
This passage is an excellent example of one of the characteristic features of Hebrew syntax. Greek, like other European languages, does not have this kind of sentence structure with the conjunction "and" appearing over and over again. Greek prefers to subordinate an independent clause to the main clause of the sentence. For example: "when I woke up, I got dressed. As soon as I ate breakfast, I brush my teeth. After I read the morning newspaper, I drove to work." Hebrew, on the other hand, prefers to join clauses with the conjunction "and." To the European, this continual usage of "and" is distracting and sometimes irritating.
To be continued.
Paul
Hebraic Perspective
Re: Hebraic Perspective
Part 2
The Hebraic undertext is revealed not only in sentence structure but in many literalisms and idioms present, which are particular to the Hebrew language. And an ability to recognize these Hebraisms has caused much difficulty in the interpretation and understanding of many of the sayings of Jesus. However, many sayings of Jesus seem to make sense in English translation, but means something entirely different than what we think. For example:
The Kingdom of God is at hand [or literally, "near"] (Luke 10:9).
Whatsoever thou shall bind (or loose) on earth shall be bound (or loose) in heaven (Matt.16:19).
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye tell in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20).
Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jolt or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17- 18).
The above sayings all seem to make sense. The problem is that many words in Hebrew have overtones that do not exist in English. A Hebrew word often has a much wider range of meaning than its English or Greek literal equivalent. Since our English gospels are derived from a Hebrew original, many of the English words do not mean what they appear to mean. As would be expected with a translation from Hebrew, we see the wider range of Hebrew meaning in many of the words used, rather than the more limited range of English or Greek meaning.
When we speak of Hebraisms or Hebrew idioms in our Greek or English text, what we are is really speaking about are "literalisms" - overly literal translations of Hebrew idioms. How can one detect a literalism? We detect a literalisms in the same way that we can tell if a person, who is speaking English, is thinking in another language. If, for instance, we hear a person say in English, "Throw the cow over the fence some hay," or "Go the hill down and turn the corner around," we know the speaker is speaking in German. If someone says, "Help you me to find the ball," we know the speaker is thinking in Spanish. "I want somebody a book to give" indicates that the speaker is Dutch. "We will be happy to receive your faces at our son's birthday party," indicates that the speaker is thinking in Hebrew. We can recognize the speaker's native tongue because every language has its own unique idioms and sentence structures. Often only the person who is familiar with the language of the idiom will understand the idiom. Rigidly literal translations of Hebrew idioms often give the reader the wrong impression.
Often whole sentences, or even whole passages, of our gospels translate word for word right back into the original Hebrew. When Jesus gave his commission to the disciples he sent out, he said, "What ever houses you enter, first say, 'shalom be to this house.' And if a son of shalom is there, your shalom shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you" (Luke 10:5-6). In English, needless to say, you cannot say "Shalom" or "Peace" to a house, nor can "peace" rest upon or return to someone. In Hebrew, though, this all makes perfectly good sense. The unfortunate part of the story is that many of these Hebraisms often go unnoticed by our translators, including those of our most recent translations.
"Forget" is another word was does not always mean what it seems to in English Bible translations. It can mean "not to intervene on behalf of," or "to abandon." Also by the time of the second Temple, Jews had developed an aversion to using the name of God for fear of violating the Third Commandment. They substituted evasive synonyms for "God" such as "the Name," (an abbreviation both "the Name of the Lord"), "the Place," "the Power," and "Heaven" (as in Matt 21:25 quoted above). In the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven," this substitution is clearly seen. In Luke 15:18 the Prodigal Son says, “ have sinned against Heaven…” There also, "Heaven" is a clear substitution for "God."
In Hebrew, there are many synonyms for "salvation." The word "salvation" itself is little used. Other words express this concept more powerfully. "Righteousness" is one of the synonyms for "salvation." Zion is called "the city of righteousness" (Isaiah 1:26). The branch of David is called "the Lord is our righteousness" Even the Hebrew word "judgment" (or "justice") can mean "salvation." In the same way, the verb "judge" often means "save." When David is in trouble, he cries out, “Judge me oh God…” (Psalms for 3:1). The judges of the Old Testament were saviors or delivers of the people, and not judges in the modern sense of the word. God is called "the Judge" or "the Judge of all the earth". "Righteousness and Judgment" are the foundation of his throne (Psalm 89:14). Over and over, the prophet Isaiah uses "judgment" essays on them for "salvation": "Therefore judgment is far from us; and righteousness does not reach us… Judgment is turned back; and righteousness stands at a distance" (Isaiah 59:9, 11, 14). Of course "judgment" is not always a synonym for "salvation" in the Bible. It is often a synonym for "destruction" or "d**nation." How then can the English reader distinguish between the two meanings? He can not, unless he is aware that the text he is reading as a translation from Hebrew, and unless he knows that in the Hebrew word "judgment" has additional meanings which do not exist in English.
The Greek engiken, or the English "near," mean: "it's not yet here." The implication is that the kingdom of God is futuristic, not yet here. The Hebrew karav means the exact opposite: "It's here! It has arrived!"
The most important for the understanding of such passages as Luke 10:9: "The Kingdom of God has come near to you." We can see how the Greek or English leaves the wrong concept of Kingdom of God: futuristic. The Hebrew leaves to correct concept: present tense — NOW! The kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God is always present tense, "right now," according to Jesus' understanding, and in rabbinic usage as well. It is unfortunate that the church, because of a Greek consciousness, has been to use the kingdom of heaven with Jesus' teachings on his Second Coming (what Jesus calls "the coming of the Son of Man").
The concept of "kingdom" is perhaps the most important spiritual concept in the New Testament. In English or Greek, "kingdom" is never verbal. It is something static, something to do with territory. But, in Hebrew, "kingdom" is active, it is action. It is God ruling in the lives of men. Those who are ruled by God are the kingdom of God.
"Kingdom" is also a demonstration of God's rule through miracles, signs, and wonders. Wherever the power of God is demonstrated, there is his "Kingdom." "Kingdom" as the demonstration of God's power is echoed every week in the Sabbath prayers in the synagogue: "Your son's saw your Kingdom as you split the Red Sea before Moses." How can one see God's kingdom? It is only possible when "kingdom" is correctly understood as something which is verbal and not static. We see God's kingdom when we see Him in action. This is what Jesus meant when he said: "but if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20).
Jesus also used "kingdom" to refer to those who followed him, the members of his movement. His disciples were now to literally be the Kingdom of God by demonstrating his presence and power in their lives. Jesus' charged to those set out by him was: "Whenever you enter a town and you are excepted… heal the sick of that town and tell them,' the kingdom of God is here!'" (Luke 10:8-9).
The introduction is complete. Now the interesting information is coming.
Paul
The Hebraic undertext is revealed not only in sentence structure but in many literalisms and idioms present, which are particular to the Hebrew language. And an ability to recognize these Hebraisms has caused much difficulty in the interpretation and understanding of many of the sayings of Jesus. However, many sayings of Jesus seem to make sense in English translation, but means something entirely different than what we think. For example:
The Kingdom of God is at hand [or literally, "near"] (Luke 10:9).
Whatsoever thou shall bind (or loose) on earth shall be bound (or loose) in heaven (Matt.16:19).
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye tell in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:20).
Think not that I have come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jolt or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:17- 18).
The above sayings all seem to make sense. The problem is that many words in Hebrew have overtones that do not exist in English. A Hebrew word often has a much wider range of meaning than its English or Greek literal equivalent. Since our English gospels are derived from a Hebrew original, many of the English words do not mean what they appear to mean. As would be expected with a translation from Hebrew, we see the wider range of Hebrew meaning in many of the words used, rather than the more limited range of English or Greek meaning.
When we speak of Hebraisms or Hebrew idioms in our Greek or English text, what we are is really speaking about are "literalisms" - overly literal translations of Hebrew idioms. How can one detect a literalism? We detect a literalisms in the same way that we can tell if a person, who is speaking English, is thinking in another language. If, for instance, we hear a person say in English, "Throw the cow over the fence some hay," or "Go the hill down and turn the corner around," we know the speaker is speaking in German. If someone says, "Help you me to find the ball," we know the speaker is thinking in Spanish. "I want somebody a book to give" indicates that the speaker is Dutch. "We will be happy to receive your faces at our son's birthday party," indicates that the speaker is thinking in Hebrew. We can recognize the speaker's native tongue because every language has its own unique idioms and sentence structures. Often only the person who is familiar with the language of the idiom will understand the idiom. Rigidly literal translations of Hebrew idioms often give the reader the wrong impression.
Often whole sentences, or even whole passages, of our gospels translate word for word right back into the original Hebrew. When Jesus gave his commission to the disciples he sent out, he said, "What ever houses you enter, first say, 'shalom be to this house.' And if a son of shalom is there, your shalom shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you" (Luke 10:5-6). In English, needless to say, you cannot say "Shalom" or "Peace" to a house, nor can "peace" rest upon or return to someone. In Hebrew, though, this all makes perfectly good sense. The unfortunate part of the story is that many of these Hebraisms often go unnoticed by our translators, including those of our most recent translations.
"Forget" is another word was does not always mean what it seems to in English Bible translations. It can mean "not to intervene on behalf of," or "to abandon." Also by the time of the second Temple, Jews had developed an aversion to using the name of God for fear of violating the Third Commandment. They substituted evasive synonyms for "God" such as "the Name," (an abbreviation both "the Name of the Lord"), "the Place," "the Power," and "Heaven" (as in Matt 21:25 quoted above). In the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven," this substitution is clearly seen. In Luke 15:18 the Prodigal Son says, “ have sinned against Heaven…” There also, "Heaven" is a clear substitution for "God."
In Hebrew, there are many synonyms for "salvation." The word "salvation" itself is little used. Other words express this concept more powerfully. "Righteousness" is one of the synonyms for "salvation." Zion is called "the city of righteousness" (Isaiah 1:26). The branch of David is called "the Lord is our righteousness" Even the Hebrew word "judgment" (or "justice") can mean "salvation." In the same way, the verb "judge" often means "save." When David is in trouble, he cries out, “Judge me oh God…” (Psalms for 3:1). The judges of the Old Testament were saviors or delivers of the people, and not judges in the modern sense of the word. God is called "the Judge" or "the Judge of all the earth". "Righteousness and Judgment" are the foundation of his throne (Psalm 89:14). Over and over, the prophet Isaiah uses "judgment" essays on them for "salvation": "Therefore judgment is far from us; and righteousness does not reach us… Judgment is turned back; and righteousness stands at a distance" (Isaiah 59:9, 11, 14). Of course "judgment" is not always a synonym for "salvation" in the Bible. It is often a synonym for "destruction" or "d**nation." How then can the English reader distinguish between the two meanings? He can not, unless he is aware that the text he is reading as a translation from Hebrew, and unless he knows that in the Hebrew word "judgment" has additional meanings which do not exist in English.
The Greek engiken, or the English "near," mean: "it's not yet here." The implication is that the kingdom of God is futuristic, not yet here. The Hebrew karav means the exact opposite: "It's here! It has arrived!"
The most important for the understanding of such passages as Luke 10:9: "The Kingdom of God has come near to you." We can see how the Greek or English leaves the wrong concept of Kingdom of God: futuristic. The Hebrew leaves to correct concept: present tense — NOW! The kingdom of heaven or kingdom of God is always present tense, "right now," according to Jesus' understanding, and in rabbinic usage as well. It is unfortunate that the church, because of a Greek consciousness, has been to use the kingdom of heaven with Jesus' teachings on his Second Coming (what Jesus calls "the coming of the Son of Man").
The concept of "kingdom" is perhaps the most important spiritual concept in the New Testament. In English or Greek, "kingdom" is never verbal. It is something static, something to do with territory. But, in Hebrew, "kingdom" is active, it is action. It is God ruling in the lives of men. Those who are ruled by God are the kingdom of God.
"Kingdom" is also a demonstration of God's rule through miracles, signs, and wonders. Wherever the power of God is demonstrated, there is his "Kingdom." "Kingdom" as the demonstration of God's power is echoed every week in the Sabbath prayers in the synagogue: "Your son's saw your Kingdom as you split the Red Sea before Moses." How can one see God's kingdom? It is only possible when "kingdom" is correctly understood as something which is verbal and not static. We see God's kingdom when we see Him in action. This is what Jesus meant when he said: "but if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20).
Jesus also used "kingdom" to refer to those who followed him, the members of his movement. His disciples were now to literally be the Kingdom of God by demonstrating his presence and power in their lives. Jesus' charged to those set out by him was: "Whenever you enter a town and you are excepted… heal the sick of that town and tell them,' the kingdom of God is here!'" (Luke 10:8-9).
The introduction is complete. Now the interesting information is coming.
Paul
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Re: Hebraic Perspective
Is this copyrighted material?
Limited quoting is fine but this is more than that in my opinion. Can you summarize and provide a cite for those who want to follow-up?
Thanks,
Bart
Limited quoting is fine but this is more than that in my opinion. Can you summarize and provide a cite for those who want to follow-up?
Thanks,
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Re: Hebraic Perspective
The Hebrew/Aramaic ur-text theory has little or no real support. Some details here.
Re: Hebraic Perspective
Thanks for the input Bart. I was only planning on discussing a very small portion of their book. I just wanted to hit a few of the high lights and show the importance of their work. I will switch to using their concepts and not quote from the book. The ideas and concepts of the following information was derived from Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus. New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective. by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard.
Did Jesus Teach Pacifism
We all know Jesus taught a higher ethic by his statement, "turn the other cheek." Can it be, then, that Jesus taught pacifism? The authors believed it is very unlikely.
We know that at least some of Jesus' disciples were armed (Luke 22:38; 22:50). Add to this the fact that, at one point, Jesus even suggested to his disciples that they purchase swords (Luke 22:35-37).
Luke 22:35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." 36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
It makes you wonder, did Jesus really believe or teach pacifism? Bivin and Blizarrd, believe pacifism is a theological misunderstanding based on several mistranslations of Jesus' sayings. I will only discuss two however, they cover many more.
The first of the mistranslations they discuss is Matthew 5:21, where several English versions of the Bible read, "You shall not kill." (KJV, ASV, RV,RSV,YLT). This is a quotation of Exodus 20:13. The Hebrew word used here is "murder" (ratzach), and not kill (harag). In Hebrew, there is a clear distinction between these two words. The commandment very precisely prohibits murder, but not the taking of a life in defense of oneself or others.
A second saying of Jesus on which pacifism is based is Matthew 5:39, usually translated, "Do not resist evil," or "Do not resist the one who is evil." Did Jesus really say this to his disciples? If he did, his statement contradicts other scriptures such as, "Hate what is evil" (Romans 12:9), and "Resist the devil" (James 4:7).
Bivin and Blizarrd believe that Hebrew provides the answer. When they translate this verse back into Hebrew, they began to see that Jesus was not creating a new saying, but quoting a known Old Testament proverb. This proverb appears, with slight variations, in Psalms 37:1,8, and Proverbs 24:19. In modern English we would translate this saying: "Don't compete with evildoers." In other words, do not try to rival or vie with a neighbor who has wronged you.
Jesus is not teaching that one should lie down in the face of evil or submit to evil; rather, he is teaching that we should not try and "get back at," or taken revenge on a quarrelsome neighbor. As Proverbs 24:29 says: "do not say, 'I will do to him as he is done to me. I will pay the man back for what he has done.'"
They believed that Jesus was expressing an important principle which applies to our relationships with friends and neighbors. It does not apply when we are confronted with a murderer, rapist, or like person of violence; nor when we are facing the enemy on the field of battle.
I believe Jesus was not talking about how to deal with violence like rape and robbery. He was talking about the fundamentals of brotherly relationships, about how to relate to our neighbor. If, for instance, a neighbor dumps a bag of leaves on our lawn, we are not to retaliate by dumping two bags on his lawn. We are to respond to our neighbor in a way that will disarm and shame him for his actions. Proverbs 25:21 says: "if your enemy is hungry, get him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In so doing, you heap red-hot coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you."
I could see how the mistranslations of Matthew 5:39 would created a theological contradiction. But, when the saying is understood Hebraically, rather than contradict, it harmonized with the rest of Scripture. Our response to evil should be to resist it. It is morally wrong for us to tolerate evil.
Based on Bivin and Blizarrd's understanding, I believe our response to a "hotheaded" neighbor must be entirely different. His anger will only be temporary if we respond in a Biblical manner:
1Th 5:15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. It is the responsibility of the godly person to diffuse a potentially divisive situation by "turning away wrath." So I agree with their assessment. I do not believe Jesus was teaching Pacifism.
Any thoughts on this?
Did Jesus Teach Pacifism
We all know Jesus taught a higher ethic by his statement, "turn the other cheek." Can it be, then, that Jesus taught pacifism? The authors believed it is very unlikely.
We know that at least some of Jesus' disciples were armed (Luke 22:38; 22:50). Add to this the fact that, at one point, Jesus even suggested to his disciples that they purchase swords (Luke 22:35-37).
Luke 22:35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." 36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
It makes you wonder, did Jesus really believe or teach pacifism? Bivin and Blizarrd, believe pacifism is a theological misunderstanding based on several mistranslations of Jesus' sayings. I will only discuss two however, they cover many more.
The first of the mistranslations they discuss is Matthew 5:21, where several English versions of the Bible read, "You shall not kill." (KJV, ASV, RV,RSV,YLT). This is a quotation of Exodus 20:13. The Hebrew word used here is "murder" (ratzach), and not kill (harag). In Hebrew, there is a clear distinction between these two words. The commandment very precisely prohibits murder, but not the taking of a life in defense of oneself or others.
A second saying of Jesus on which pacifism is based is Matthew 5:39, usually translated, "Do not resist evil," or "Do not resist the one who is evil." Did Jesus really say this to his disciples? If he did, his statement contradicts other scriptures such as, "Hate what is evil" (Romans 12:9), and "Resist the devil" (James 4:7).
Bivin and Blizarrd believe that Hebrew provides the answer. When they translate this verse back into Hebrew, they began to see that Jesus was not creating a new saying, but quoting a known Old Testament proverb. This proverb appears, with slight variations, in Psalms 37:1,8, and Proverbs 24:19. In modern English we would translate this saying: "Don't compete with evildoers." In other words, do not try to rival or vie with a neighbor who has wronged you.
Jesus is not teaching that one should lie down in the face of evil or submit to evil; rather, he is teaching that we should not try and "get back at," or taken revenge on a quarrelsome neighbor. As Proverbs 24:29 says: "do not say, 'I will do to him as he is done to me. I will pay the man back for what he has done.'"
They believed that Jesus was expressing an important principle which applies to our relationships with friends and neighbors. It does not apply when we are confronted with a murderer, rapist, or like person of violence; nor when we are facing the enemy on the field of battle.
I believe Jesus was not talking about how to deal with violence like rape and robbery. He was talking about the fundamentals of brotherly relationships, about how to relate to our neighbor. If, for instance, a neighbor dumps a bag of leaves on our lawn, we are not to retaliate by dumping two bags on his lawn. We are to respond to our neighbor in a way that will disarm and shame him for his actions. Proverbs 25:21 says: "if your enemy is hungry, get him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In so doing, you heap red-hot coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you."
I could see how the mistranslations of Matthew 5:39 would created a theological contradiction. But, when the saying is understood Hebraically, rather than contradict, it harmonized with the rest of Scripture. Our response to evil should be to resist it. It is morally wrong for us to tolerate evil.
Based on Bivin and Blizarrd's understanding, I believe our response to a "hotheaded" neighbor must be entirely different. His anger will only be temporary if we respond in a Biblical manner:
1Th 5:15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. It is the responsibility of the godly person to diffuse a potentially divisive situation by "turning away wrath." So I agree with their assessment. I do not believe Jesus was teaching Pacifism.
Any thoughts on this?
Re: Hebraic Perspective
David Bivin gives excellent examples of passages often misinterpreted due to lack of understanding of Hebrew idioms. I will summarize one.
Luke 10:5 "Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' 6 "If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.
"Son of peace" is an idiom with does not exist in English. To translate it literally, as do most of our Bible translations, is of little help. What does "son of peace" mean?
A few of the more recent translations of the Bible have used "lover of peace." While that sounds more English, it is not the correct translation of the Hebrew idiom "son of peace."
Mr. Bivin shows the wide range of meaning of the Hebrew word "son." Actually, its range of meaning is even wider than was indicated in his book: "son of a house" is one who is such a close friend that he is like a member of the family; "son of death" (1 Samuel 20:31) is one who deserves to die, or who has been condemned to die; "son of a conversation" is one's partner in a conversation; "son of eating" is a thing which is fit to be eaten. And there are many other idiomatic usages in the Hebrew of the word "son."
I have found that "Son of peace" does not refer to the peace loving man (although he is probably that too), but rather to the friendly man, the man who gets along well with other people. This is the harmonious, good-natured person who simply loves other people. It is a person with an attitude like the well-known cowboy humorist, the late Will Rogers, who said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Naturally, a "son of peace" is cordial, warmhearted, generous, and hospitable. Jesus instructs his disciples to bless the family of such a man. They are to remain in his home as long as they remained in the city. They are not to move from house to house. The implication is that if they do not find a "son of peace" in the house that they have entered, they are to move to another house.
Let me try to express more fully what Jesus said in Luke by using my new understanding I gained from reading this book by translating it into our idiomatic style of English: When you are invited into a home, let your first act be to say, "Peace to this family!" If the head of the house turns out to be truly friendly and hospitable [a "son of peace"], let the blessing, "Peace," you pronounced when you entered his house remain upon his family. If he is not friendly, withdraw your blessing (and move to another house).
"Peace to this family" is the blessing. It is a blessing of "shalom," or "peace." The Hebrew word "shalom" has shades of meaning the English word "peace" does not have. "Shalom" can mean "safety" or "security," as for instance in Luke 11:21, "when a strongman, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are in shalom [i.e., "safe"]. A disciple of Jesus bless his host with safety: while the disciple lodged in a home, the host and his family were safe, and all their possessions were safe. "Shalom" can also mean "good health." The disciples blessed his host with health: The disciple's presence meant protection against injury and illness.
In addition, since each disciple healed the sick in whatever town or village he visited, certainly we may assume that he healed any sick members of a family with whom he had been invited to stay. His blessing, then, was not just empty words. He had a real and tangible blessing to give, so much so that Jesus said the disciples deserved payment for it (Luke 10:7). The blessing Jesus instructed his disciples to use reminds us of a similar blessing used by the sages: "Shalom to you, shalom to your house [i.e.,"family"], and shalom to everything you own."
It's really cool to see scripture in a new light!
Paul
Luke 10:5 "Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' 6 "If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.
"Son of peace" is an idiom with does not exist in English. To translate it literally, as do most of our Bible translations, is of little help. What does "son of peace" mean?
A few of the more recent translations of the Bible have used "lover of peace." While that sounds more English, it is not the correct translation of the Hebrew idiom "son of peace."
Mr. Bivin shows the wide range of meaning of the Hebrew word "son." Actually, its range of meaning is even wider than was indicated in his book: "son of a house" is one who is such a close friend that he is like a member of the family; "son of death" (1 Samuel 20:31) is one who deserves to die, or who has been condemned to die; "son of a conversation" is one's partner in a conversation; "son of eating" is a thing which is fit to be eaten. And there are many other idiomatic usages in the Hebrew of the word "son."
I have found that "Son of peace" does not refer to the peace loving man (although he is probably that too), but rather to the friendly man, the man who gets along well with other people. This is the harmonious, good-natured person who simply loves other people. It is a person with an attitude like the well-known cowboy humorist, the late Will Rogers, who said, "I never met a man I didn't like." Naturally, a "son of peace" is cordial, warmhearted, generous, and hospitable. Jesus instructs his disciples to bless the family of such a man. They are to remain in his home as long as they remained in the city. They are not to move from house to house. The implication is that if they do not find a "son of peace" in the house that they have entered, they are to move to another house.
Let me try to express more fully what Jesus said in Luke by using my new understanding I gained from reading this book by translating it into our idiomatic style of English: When you are invited into a home, let your first act be to say, "Peace to this family!" If the head of the house turns out to be truly friendly and hospitable [a "son of peace"], let the blessing, "Peace," you pronounced when you entered his house remain upon his family. If he is not friendly, withdraw your blessing (and move to another house).
"Peace to this family" is the blessing. It is a blessing of "shalom," or "peace." The Hebrew word "shalom" has shades of meaning the English word "peace" does not have. "Shalom" can mean "safety" or "security," as for instance in Luke 11:21, "when a strongman, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are in shalom [i.e., "safe"]. A disciple of Jesus bless his host with safety: while the disciple lodged in a home, the host and his family were safe, and all their possessions were safe. "Shalom" can also mean "good health." The disciples blessed his host with health: The disciple's presence meant protection against injury and illness.
In addition, since each disciple healed the sick in whatever town or village he visited, certainly we may assume that he healed any sick members of a family with whom he had been invited to stay. His blessing, then, was not just empty words. He had a real and tangible blessing to give, so much so that Jesus said the disciples deserved payment for it (Luke 10:7). The blessing Jesus instructed his disciples to use reminds us of a similar blessing used by the sages: "Shalom to you, shalom to your house [i.e.,"family"], and shalom to everything you own."
It's really cool to see scripture in a new light!
Paul