THE CONTOUR OF HEBREW THOUGHT

• breytonhartge

  11 Aug 06, 17:58

  THE CONTOUR OF HEBREW THOUGHT
  By Marvin R. Wilson, Ph.D.
  
  Christianity does not derive from pagan, Hellenistic sources or from speculative worldviews. Neither is it a syncretistic religion deeply rooted in mystery cults, Gnostic sects, naturalistic philosophies, or polytheistic thought. Rather, the Christian faith is divinely revealed and is securely anchored in the Hebrew Bible–the Law, Prophets, and Writings. God breathed his word into the minds of the biblical authors within a Jewish cultural environment. Consequently, for us, in the most succinct terms, “to ignore Hebraic ways of thinking is to subvert Christian understanding.” 1 We must, therefore, focus on the language and thought-patterns found in the Scriptures so that we are able to penetrate the mind of the Hebrew people. When we enter their civilization and view it through their eyes, we find that the contour of their thought is vibrant, rich, and colorful. It has its own nuances and features. Indeed, the Hebraic background to Christian thought is at the heart of the rich spiritual legacy that the Jews have shared with Christians.
  
  An Energetic People, a Descriptive Language
  The Hebrews were largely an energetic, robust, and, at times, even turbulent people. They were primarily outdoor folk–farmers, fishermen, tradesmen–who lived life to the full. For them, truth was not so much an idea to be contemplated as an experience to be lived, a deed to be done. The biblical writers often use vocabulary which is highly colorful, dynamic, and action-centered.
  
  A careful study of the Hebrew Bible will reveal what Martin Luther called a “special energy” in its vocabulary. Luther discovered what many Hebraists of the twentieth century have recently come to affirm with him: it is impossible to convey so much so briefly in any other language. Luther concluded the following: “The Hebrew language is the best language of all, with the richest vocabulary. . . . It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from a downstream pool.” 2
  
  Laziness, inertia, or passivity were hardly marks of the Hebrews’ lifestyle. Rather, the Hebrews were mainly a doing and feeling people. Thus their language has few abstract terms. Rather, “Hebrew may be called primarily a language of the senses. The words originally expressed concrete or material things and movements or actions which struck the senses or started the emotions. Only secondarily and in metaphor could they be used to denote abstract or metaphysical ideas.” 3 The Hebrews often refer to God by anthropomorphisms (i.e., representations of God with human attributes). The “living” and “active” God of the Hebrews is thus never reduced to mere impersonal abstraction.
  
  Jewish anthropologist Raphael Patai has observed that because the Hebrews liked the concrete and tended to avoid the abstract, the idea of doctrinal formulation was alien to their mind. 4 The Lord is the God of Israel, and Israel is the people of God. Here is the leitmotif of biblical theology. The Torah gives direction to Israel on how to relate to the Creator, his people, and his world. Sin ruptures that relationship, but repentance brings forgiveness and restoration to fellowship. For the Hebrews, personal or individual relationship has always been far more expressive of the heart of religious faith than mere intellectual assent to abstract statements or religious ideas.
  
  Modern man in the Western world thinks he has an image to defend. He is supposed to be macho and keep his cool. He is expected to be made of steel, always in control. He does not allow himself to become vulnerable by revealing much of his emotions. It is usually considered unmanly for him to cry. Yet Jesus, the exemplary man, wept (Luke 19:41; John 11:35). This display of emotion was in sharp contrast to the Greco-Roman world of the Stoics, who sought to be indifferent to pleasure or pain; they were determined never to submit or to yield; they were resolved to overcome their emotions and desires. The Hebrews, however, were a very passionate people; they did not hide or suppress their emotions.
  
  continued....
• breytonhartge

  11 Aug 06, 18:00

  Part2
  
  The Hebrews–both men and women–were able to affirm their full humanity. They gave vent to their feelings, for each emotion had “a time” appropriate for its expression: being angry, crying, laughing, singing, feasting, dancing, hand clapping, shouting, embracing, and loving (see Eccl. 3:1-8 ). A brief summary of the holidays described in the Bible reveals a decisive emphasis on the release of emotion, especially joy. The weekly Sabbath is a time of rejoicing as God is celebrated as Creator (Isaiah 58:13-14; cf. Exod. 20:8-11). The entire annual calendar of festivals shows that the Hebrews were not afraid to release their emotions, in collective historical memory, before God and one another. The Hebrews were hardly halfhearted or reserved in their approach to life.
  
  Is there a message in all of this for Christians today? How ought the Hebraic disposition of being a dynamic, feeling, and fully human people affect the modern Church? One Old Testament scholar, John Bright, addresses this issue in these apt words:
  
  We shall never hear the Old Testament’s word rightly unless we are willing to hear it all. That is to say, we must hear it in its full humanity. There is a drive toward incarnation in the biblical revelation . . . it pleased God to reveal himself not through timeless teachings, or some heavenly gnosis, but through the events of a particular history, and to and through men who were caught up in history, and who were in every case men of like passions with ourselves and subject to all the limitations of our flesh. And God’s final revelation of himself was given–so the New Testament declares–when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” in the form of a man who had a body like our own and feelings like our own, and whose mortal life, like ours, ended in death. It is incumbent upon us to take this aspect of the Biblical revelation seriously. 5
  
  The Hebrews were a very passionate people who did not suppress their emotions. Both men and women could affirm their full humanity.
  
  The biblical authors never argue the existence of God; they only assume it. God is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrews primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving God” (i.e., a God who loves), rather than “God is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture.
  The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was “under the sun” (Eccl. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to oversystematize or force harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what God has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sizes of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand.
  While philosophical and structural divisions of learning obviously have an important role to play in contemporary education, our Western culture–especially on most levels of secular and Christian instruction–has provided little understanding concerning the nature of Hebrew thought. Thus we have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schema-tization. Neither God nor his Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both God and his Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation. The Christian dogmatic tradition has much to learn from the Jewish community at this point.
  
  The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth–they experienced truth. Truth is as much encounter as it is propositions. This experiential perspective on reality explains, in part, why Judaism never really developed vast systems of thought. It also allows us to understand how Judaism could live with the tensions and paradoxes surrounding block logic. To the Jew, the deed was always more important than the creed. He was not stymied by language that appeared contradictory from a human point of view. Neither did he feel compelled to reconcile what seemed irreconcilable. He believed that God ultimately was greater than any human attempt at systematizing truth. “Walking in the truth” (2 John 4) and “living the truth” (1 John 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth.
  
  continued...
• breytonhartge

  11 Aug 06, 18:01

  Part 3
  
  Everything Is Theological
  To the Hebrew mind, everything is theological. That is, the Hebrews make no distinction between the sacred and the secular areas of life. They see all of life as a unity. It is all God’s domain. He has a stake in all that comes to pass–whether trials or joys. And human beings have an awareness of God in all that they do. To the Hebrew mind, all the circumstances of life–the good times and the hard times–come not by chance but under the sovereign control of Almighty God.
  
  Both Testaments emphasize this teaching concerning the sacredness of all of life. In Old Testament times the Hebrew farmer recited a special prayer (Deut. 26:5-10a) in order to remind him that the occupation of tilling the soil is sacred. 6 Reflecting his strong Hebrew background (see Phil. 3:4-6), Paul writes, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Cor. 10:31; see also Col. 3:17).
  
  Prayer is the means by which Jews–both ancient and modern–have stayed attuned to the concept that all of life is sacred. Jewish prayers tend to be short because the entire working day of an observant Jew is punctuated with sentence prayers. More than one hundred of these berakhot, “blessings,” are recited throughout the day (cf. Mishnah, Berakhot 9:1-5). They customarily begin, Barukh attah adonai, “Blessed are you, O LORD.” As King and Creator of the universe, God’s presence is acknowledged at all times and in every sphere of activity with his world. Moses commanded the Israelites to bless the Lord for his goodness (Deut. 8:10). Building on this and other texts, the rabbis taught, “It is forbidden to a man to enjoy anything of this world without a benediction, and if anyone enjoys anything of this world without a benediction, he commits sacrilege” (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 35a). Abraham Heschel poignantly describes this Jewish mind-set as follows: “Saintliness was not thought to consist in specific acts, such as excessive prayer . . . but was an attitude bound up with all actions, concomitant with all doings, accompanying and shaping all life’s activities.” 7 Indeed, today’s Christians will fail to grasp Paul’s admonition to “Pray without ceasing,” that is, “Pray continually” (I Thess. 5:17), unless they understand that a main feature of Jewish prayer is its pervasiveness.
  
  Religion as a Way of Life
  Some would define religion as a system of ethics, a code of conduct, an ideology, or a creed. To a Hebrew it is none of these; such definitions are misleading, deficient, or inaccurate. Rather, a Hebrew understood his daily life of faith in terms of journey or pilgrimage. His religion was tantamount to the way in which he chose to walk. Even before the Flood, people such as Enoch and Noah “walked with God” (Gen. 5:24; 6:9). If a person knows God, he is daily at God’s disposal and walks in close fellowship with him, along the road of life. Ceremonialism and ritualism alone do not meet God’s requirement for the good life (Isa. 1:11-14; Amos 5:21-23). But those who act justly and love mercy and walk humbly with God do please him (Mic. 6:8 ). Thus, we return to the fact that the essence of religion is relationship; it is walking with God in his path of wisdom and righteousness and in his way of service to others.
  
  The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth--they experienced truth.
  The deed was always more important than the creed.
  
  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses this familiar Hebraic imagery to teach about the two ways. The broad one leads to destruction, and the narrow one to life (Matt. 7:13-14). In one of the eight Johannine “I am” pronouncements, Jesus clarifies this concept even further. He states, “I am the way” (John 14:6). In the book of Acts, the early Christians designate their movement as “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9,23; 22:4; 24:14,22).
  
  continued....
• breytonhartge

  11 Aug 06, 18:03

  A Different View of Time and History
  The Bible is, first and foremost, God’s revelation in history, and it is precisely this point that sets the Bible apart from other religious literature. The majority of the chapters of the Old Testament are either from the “historical books” or are placed in concrete historical settings. The Old Testament is concerned with a theological interpretation of history. “Jewish history is the record of a god-intoxicated, god-thirsty people” 8 (cf. Ps. 143:6). History is the arena where the track of the Almighty may be followed through specific revelatory events. The collective memory of the Jewish community has given it purpose and kept it alive. Knowledge of being summoned as a covenant people in the past gave the Jews both a sense of identity and mission for the present and a hope for the future. It is against this Jewish background of historical memory that the early Church saw the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor.11:25) and baptism (Rom. 6:3-5). Through these awe-inspiring ceremonies the Church is called to rehearse the meaning of the central salvific events in the life of its Lord.
  
  Unlike some of their neighbors, the Hebrews did not hold to a circular concept of history tied closely to the cycles of nature. Hebrew history was not a monotonous, purposeless, and eternal cycle of happenings. Nor did the Hebrews view life as a race toward death in which one desperately seeks to escape from the clutches of time. The Hebrew concept of history did not embrace any “blind, meaningless outcome of a fortuitous conglomeration of atoms, or the ever-recurring expression of uncontrolled and uncontrollable cosmic force, of fate and dearth.” 9 Rather, in sharp distinction, the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive. In short, it was going somewhere; it was enroute to a goal, a glorious climax at the end of this age. The consummation of history in the age to come will see nature transformed through the removal of evil from the earth.
  
  Hebrew history is holy or sacred history (Heilsgeschichte). God is the Lord of history, which is thus the account of Yahweh, “he who is actively present,” at work in his world among his people. It is the story of divine redemption. Through his deeds and words (events and their interpretation) God brings meaning to Israel’s earthly pilgrimage. He is above history (transcendent), sovereign, and responsible for bringing events to pass. Yet he is also immanent, present in and among his people, though they are responsible for their actions since they are free to choose.
  
  Other ancient civilizations produced histories intended primarily to glorify a ruler among his subjects or to exalt that nation in the eyes of the world. Hebrew history, however, was written to glorify the Lord of the universe. It was written to inspire faith and trust in the living God. Whereas other peoples in the ancient Mediterranean world asked if there was anything worth living for (suicide or sudden death was always an option), the Hebrews taught the world to sanctify time. They believed that something sacred was at stake in each event and each life. Hence one must not kill time but redeem time (cf. Eph. 5:16).
  Ours is a secular age. It is characterized by change, uncertainty, pessimism, and rootlessness. Many are asking today if there is anything to hold on to which is both stable and permanent and that can give hope and encouragement for tomorrow. There is a firm and secure root to support us. The “root that supports” (Romans 11:18 ) and “nourishes” (11:17) is the godly, living faith of Israel. This is our foundation: to know the God of history, Israel’s history (cf. Heb. 11). This concept of history brings ultimate meaning and purpose to both personal and global events. We are not alone. The future is secure. God is alive, at work, and in control.
  
  1 John Dillenberger, "Revelational Discernment and the Problem of the Two Testaments," in The Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed.. Bernhard W. Anderson (repr. New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), p. 160. (Return)
  2 This striking metaphor is from Luther's Tischreden (Table Talk), and is quoted here from Pinchas E. Lapide, Hebrew in the Church, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), p. x. (Return)
  3 George Adam Smith, "The Hebrew Genius as Exhibited in the Old Testament," in The Legacy of Israel, ed. Edwyn R. Bevan and Charles Singer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944), p. 10. (Return)
  4 Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1977), p. 67. (Return)
  5 John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 236. (Return)
  6 See Walther Zimmerli, The Old Testament and the World, trans. John J. Scullion (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976), p. 10. (Return)
  7 Abraham J. Heschel, The Earth is the LordÂ’s (New York: Henry Schuman, 1950), p. 20. (Return)
  8 S. Umen, Jewish Concepts and Reflections (New York: Philosophical Library, 1962), p. 32. (Return)
  9 W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), p. 385. (Return)
  
  Dr. Marvin R. Wilson is Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Gordon College, Wen-ham, Massachusetts. He is internationally acclaimed as an authority on the church's Judaic heritage and on Jewish/Christian relations.
  
• breytonhartge

  14 Aug 06, 20:57

  Hebrew Thought
  By: Jeff A. Benner
  
  In the world, past and present, there are two major types of cultures; the Hebrew (or eastern) culture and the Greek (or western) culture. Both of these cultures view their surroundings, lives, and purpose in ways which would seem foreign to the other. With the exception of a few Bedouin nomadic tribes living in the Near East today, the ancient Hebrew culture has disappeared.
  
  What happened to this ancient Hebrew thought and culture? Around 800 BCE, a new culture arose to the north. This new culture began to view the world very much differently than the Hebrews. This culture was the Greeks. Around 200 BCE the Greeks began to move south causing a coming together of the Greek and Hebrew culture. This was a very tumultuous time as the two vastly different cultures collided. Over the following 400 years the battle raged until finally the Greek culture won and virtually eliminated all trace of the ancient Hebrew culture. The Greek culture then in turn influenced all following cultures including the Roman and European cultures, our own American culture and even the modern Hebrew culture in Israel today.
  
  As 20th Century Americans with a strong Greek thought influence, we read the Hebrew Bible as if a 20th Century American had written it. In order to understand the ancient Hebrew culture in which the Tenack was written in, we must examine some of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought.
  
  Abstract vs. concrete thought
  Greek thought views the world through the mind (abstract thought). Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses (concrete thought).
  
  Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; “He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither". In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and a unwithered leaf (prosperity).
  
  Abstract thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted or heard. Hebrew never uses abstract thought as English does. Examples of Abstract thought can be found in Psalms 103:8; “The LORD is compassionate and gracious, Slow to anger, abounding in love”. As you noticed I said that Hebrew uses concrete and not abstract thoughts, but here we have such abstract concepts as compassionate, gracious, anger, and love in a Hebrew passage. Actually these are abstract English words translating the original Hebrew concrete words. The translators often translate this way because the original Hebrew makes no sense when literally translated into English.
  
  Let us take one of the abstract words above to demonstrate how this works. Anger, an abstract word, is actually the Hebrew word (awph) which literally means “nose”, a concrete word. When one is very angry, he begins to breath hard and the nostrils begin to flare. A Hebrew sees anger as “the flaring of the nose (nostrils)”. If the translator literally translated the above passage “slow to nose”, it would make no sense to the English reader, so a nose, is translated to “anger” in this passage.
  
  Appearance vs. Functional Description
  Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function.
  
  A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. The Hebrew word for both of these objects is (ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to the ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both. The Hebraic definition of is "a strong leader".
  
  A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals of the forest. Also the oak tree's wood is very hard compared to other trees such as the pine which is soft and is seen as a "strong leader" among the trees of the forest.
  
  Notice the two different translations of the Hebrew word in Psalms 29.9. The NASB and KJV translates it as "The voice of the LORD makes the deer to calve" while the NIV translates it as "The voice of the LORD twists the oaks". The literal translation of this verse in Hebrew thought would be; "The voice of the LORD makes the strong leaders turn".
  
  When translating the Hebrew into English, the translator must give a Greek description to this word which is why we have two different ways of translating this verse. This same word is also translated as a "ruler" in 2 Kings 24.15, who is a man who is a strong leader.
  
  Another example of Greek thought would be the following description of a common pencil: "it is yellow and about 8 inches long". A Hebrew description of the pencil would be related to its function such as "I write words with it". Notice that the Hebrew description uses the verb "write" while the Greek description uses the adjectives "yellow" and "long". Because of Hebrew's form of functional descriptions, verbs are used much more frequently then adjectives.
  
  Impersonal vs. Personal Description
  The Greek culture describes objects in relation to the object itself. The Hebrew culture describes objects in relation to the Hebrew himself.
  
  As in the example above of the pencil, the Greek description portrays the pencil's relationship to itself by using the word "is". The Hebrew describes the pencil in relation to himself by saying "I write". Because Hebrew does not describe objects in relation to itself, the Hebrew vocabulary does not have the word "is".
  
  A Greek description of God would be "God is love" which describes God in relation to God. A Hebrew description would be "God loves me" describing God in relationship to myself.
  
  Passive vs. Active Nouns
  Greek nouns are words which refer to a person, place or thing. Hebrew nouns refer to the action of a person place or thing.
  
  The Hebrews are active people and their vocabulary reflects this lifestyle. The Greek culture recognizes the words such as a knee and a gift as nouns which by themselves impart no action. But in the Hebrew vocabulary the nouns come from the same root word (BRK) because they are related, not in appearance, but in action. The Hebrew word for knee is (berak) and literally means "the part of the body that bends". The Hebrew word for a gift is (berakah), meaning "what is brought with a bent knee". The verb from the root word is (barak), meaning "to bend the knee". As you can see, both Hebrew verbs and nouns have action associated with them where the Greek nouns do not.
  
  Even the Hebrew nouns for father and mother are descriptive of action. The Hebrew word for father is (av) and literally means "the one who gives strength to the family" and mother (em) means "the one that binds the family together".