The Method of Interpretation
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV
Hear – It should come as no surprise that Hebrew thinking about Scripture is radically different from Greek thinking about Scripture. The difference is not in the language of Scripture itself. The Bible is written in Hebrew, Aramaic, a particular kind of Greek that relies on Hebraic background and many borrowed words from half a dozen other languages of the ancient Middle East. The languages are not the issue. The issue is the way human beings think about how these languages are connected to experience and the world. For Greek thinkers, language is an arbitrary reference to experience. Language acts as an abstraction, a convenient way of reducing experience to principles that can be used to predict and control (i.e., understand) future experience. For example, the word “man” does not contain anything essential to what it means to be human. One might just as easily substitute homme, dasein, hombre or the equivalent translation for “man” in any other Indo-European language.
But this is not the case in Hebrew. In Hebrew, ish says something essential about what it means to be a human male. The word is not transferable to any other language without loss of meaning. In other words, if I don’t know what the word means in Hebrew, then I don’t know what the word means in the Bible. It is the thought-form of the Hebrew paradigm that is expressed in the Hebrew language, and that thought-form is not completely conveyed in another language.
This difference has a radical implication for biblical interpretation. What it means is this: Hebrew biblical exegesis follows the path of connected words, not connected theology. A word used in one passage can be connected to the same word used in another passage even if the two biblical passages are separated by hundreds of years historically, found in completely different books of the Bible and have completely different contexts. The connection is based on the words themselves. This is possible because the interpreters assume that God is the ultimate author of all the words, and as such, is conveying a message that connects everything. So a word in Genesis that is also found in 2 Chronicles means that somehow the two are connected and proper exegesis will demonstrate this connection.
This is radically different than the usual Greek-based idea of exegesis. In Greek thought, exegesis is based on similar theological abstractions. Therefore, a passage in Genesis is only connected to a passage in 2 Chronicles if they share a common theological theme. For example, Genesis 3:15 (concerning the serpent) is related to Messianic prophecy because of an interpretative scheme that reads the passages according to a theological point of view. The connection of Genesis 3:15 to the Messiah is not related to the words. It is related to a theological construct placed over the words.
What this means is that rabbinic interpretation of the Bible is the exercise of connecting words. This, of course, is only possible in Hebrew, not in translation. And it allows the words to be malleable; they can change form, be read differently (even backwards), etc. as long as their construction is maintained. It isn’t the idea that drives the interpretation. It is the actual structure of the word itself. For example, “naked” in Genesis 2:25 is not connected to “crafty” in Genesis 3:1 in any translation, but in Hebrew ‘arom and ‘arum are clearly connected, not just phonetically but in consonant construction. The only difference between the two is the addition of a vav. In Hebrew, there is something about being naked (laid bare) that is connected to being crafty. The interpreter’s job is to articulate that connection.
Biblical exegesis in the Greco-Roman world of the Church is very different than biblical exegesis in the world of Hebrew-rabbinic thought. That doesn’t mean one is useless and the other valuable. What it means is that if we are going to understand the Bible from a Hebraic paradigm, we have to think beyond the cultural-historical-theological framework that we are used to. We have to think like the ones who wrote the words, not just like the ones to read them after Plato.
Topical Index: theology, words, paradigm, hermeneutics, interpretation, Deuteronomy 6:4
This is another dish of gold.
I wonder sometimes if the people at the table appreciate the magnitude of the truth presented to us by Skip.
Often I do not agree with the (faulty) application of the term “Jew” or the presumption that the “New Testament” was originally written in Greek (the language of scripture has always been Hebrew), BUT the relevant revelation received daily from these emails is invaluable.
My new day has come to depend thereupon.
Pieter, shalom! I so agree with your comments re “the magnitude of the truth presented to us by Skip.”!
There is always something very uplifting about Skip’s TWs that are challenging to one’s perspectives.
“if we are going to understand the Bible from a Hebraic paradigm, we have to think beyond the cultural-historical-theological framework that we are used to.”
Rosh haShanah Tovah!
Great thoughts, Skip! Any suggestions for the “layman” to be able to mine the gold of the Hebrew words? I can read Hebrew and I still wouldn’t know where to begin to look for the path of connected words. I can’t even imagine how someone who can’t read Hebrew would do it. Are you simply suggesting we give thoughtful attention to rabbinic interpretations since the sages had the skills and resources to do this, or are there ways we, too, can learn how to do this? Thanks!
The pathway into this must follow rabbinic explanation. That doesn’t mean only the sages or the ancient rabbis. David Fohrman, Abraham Heschel, Nahum Sarna are examples of the method I am suggesting. As you know, I rely on them heavily. There are also electronic search software programs that allow you to find all of the occurrences of a Hebrew word, etc. Then it’s a matter of THINKING about it all for a few years (or decades). Plod on! The spirit is willing (and so is the Spirit).
Excellent reply. Thank you! I know there are no short-cuts in the pursuit of truth, and meditating on things for years (or decades!) is, indeed, what is necessary at times for the renewing of our minds. Thank you for your labors in this area and for sharing them with us. Keep “shema-ing!”
Thank you for such an essential reminder. I’m delighted to share this with my college grandson as he goes off to bible perspective classes.
When such light as presented here in comes forth one is forced to chose . “And this is the judgment that has entered the world….that men prefer darkness rather than light…” Let us pray for the light to so shine forth that all darkness must flee before it!
Skip, David Forman told me that if the meaning of a Hebrew word was not known, it could be discerned from the combined metaphor of the letters comprising it. Consider the word for ground ‘adamah’, what came out of the ground? Adam. What gives Adam life? Blood ‘dam’ Adam is the separated blood ‘aleph dam’ meaning he was created for a purpose. The blood/life ‘dam’ is the spoken word ‘dalet’ fulfilled by the son in the flesh ‘final mem’.
Elohim means God ‘el’ separated from his people (represented by a metaphor of water ‘im’) because they do not understand his spoken word ‘hei’. God ‘el’ is the one who spoke and created the heavens and the earth ‘aleph’ who taught ‘lamed’.
THe first word of Genesis ‘bereshit’ by the letters means a revelation to man ‘bet’ It is revealed ‘rosh’ that God spoke and created the heavens and the earth ‘aleph’ his word did not return void ‘shin’ what he intended to do ‘yod’ he completed ‘tov’.
From the combinations of letters in bereshit we know that the meaning of ‘in the begiinng is:
Created six
The Son was totally devoted
A covenant with man at the center
The word was in the beginning
No man has seen the father
The son makes him known.
All things were made by the Son
I hope this blesses you.
Bob, thank you this clears up the confusion in John 1 as well…
The fullness of God’s creation is man doing his created purpose… Serve the earth… Now what would that mean…
Serve each other or add value to the earth or enjoy the fruit the earth brings forth or as Paul says in 1 Cor 10 ensure we do not place guilt on each others conscience…
The word ‘bara’ created is the Son ‘bar’ who spoke and created the heavens and the earth ‘aleph’. As a metaphor.. the grand idea, it can also be the word by which the Son created. Since it describes the one who created, John can say “The Word was God”. Also, anything that existed before creation was God, and since creation happened by the Word, the Word was God.
Elohim has three puns: ‘alokhoom’ not dark , ‘lchaim’ life, and ‘lechem’ bream. John also Identifies the Word as the light, life and bread. The prophetic riddle, or mystery which was hidden from the beginning is buried in childish riddles, word play and metaphor.
I am not sure where you get ‘serve the earth’ from what I have said.. The primary purpose of man is to know God. Certainly from other places we learn that we are to see each other as in the likeness of Christ, wearing his skin ( a pun to light) representing something like his holiness, and as such do not see each other as instinctive sinful animals who choose good and evil for themselves; even sub-consciously, not to look upon their nakedness.
Man ‘adam’ is in the earth.. contained in the metaphor and meaning of the earth ‘adamah’. It is a riddle meaning that he second Adam Christ would be in the earth. The aleph in Adam is a hint at his dual nature. It applies to us ONLY as we are made to be like him.
I have to be a bit precise in answering, recognizing that he flesh always hears things one way when something else is intended. 1 Cor 10 speaks of love overriding another’s ignorance. Though I am free to eat meat.. if a less informed brother is not so free, I will abstain for love of the brother. This does not address allowing true guilt to do its work upon the conscience.
‘Serving the earth’ is serving man ‘adam’ within adamah. God so loved it that he died for it. He set the standard of being the least in the earth as a servant, and we can only follow that example in a small way. It is the second greatest command. Love your neighbor…
Does that help?
Bob thank you. I translated subdue earth to serve earth as that what tilling the earth entails… Making it honourable by using with respect. Just personal view.
Yes thank you here to serve each other in love to address the “shortfalls” that we may have by empowering each other… Only by words and supportive caring deeds.
As stated elsewhere by differentiating between choices, neglect and needs. NOT OUR PERSONAL SUPERIOR MOTIVE. Through the love of Christ.
Ditto Luarita…
Bob, it sure helps me! If you could be so gracious to elucidate on whatever you wish at ANY time, I, for one, would always be grateful!
Would it be possible to ask what sources you could recommend in word studies for such greenhorns as I? (Free would be nice!)
Thank you so much. You and Skip both made my day.
Laurita
I don’t know how I let this site drop from my reading. Your observation of craft and naked is precisely on target. Who told Adam that he was naked? The word itself did. He had become ‘like’ the serpent. He challenged God the same way the serpent had. There was nothing wrong with being physically naked, but it took on the symbolic meaning of the choice to live in the image of an animal rather than the image of God. When we live by instinct, we choose what is good and evil for ourselves, even without thinking. We usurp he position of God. This is universal sin. We all instinctively choose good and evil for ourselves, doing what is right in our own eyes.