Principle #2
For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
By Himself – The second principle of rabbinic interpretation is a bit complicated, but once you understand it, you will see why many biblical passages seem to “wander” from one idea to the next. The principle of Gezerah Shavah (“equal category”) is based on the idea that similar words in different passages are connected in some way. Behind this principle is the thought that every word has been chosen by God so there are no accidental constructions. So, if God chose to use ‘ezer in Genesis 2, there must be some connection to the use of the same word in other passages of Scripture. After all, all the words come from God.
Let’s see how this principle is applied in the letter to the Hebrews. (You can find the entire section here). http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm
“In Heb 6:13-14, the author of the Letter to the Hebrews explains that, in his promising to Abraham, God swore by himself, because there was none greater by whom to swear. In fact, God made a three-fold promise to Abraham after his successful testing, when he showed himself willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice. The author cites only one of these three promises: “I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you” (Gen 22:17) (6:14). He explains in Heb 6:16 that only God swears by himself, unlike human beings, who swear by something or someone greater than themselves. The author’s interest in the fact of God’s oath to Abraham stems from his interest in Ps 110:4, which he interprets messianically, of Christ, in Heb 5:5-10 in tandem with Ps 2:7: “Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’.” Implicitly, the author is appealing to the exegetical principle known to the early rabbis as gezerah shavah (“an equal category”). What is common to both passages is God’s swearing of an oath: “By myself I have sworn (ômasa)” (Gen 22:16) and “Yahweh has sworn (ômesen) and will not change his mind” (Ps 110:4). The author believes that what he can determine about God’s oath-taking from Gen 22:16-17 may be transferred to Ps 110:4 and used to interpret Yahweh’s oath to the son that he is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek in Ps 110:4. In particular, he holds that in Ps 110:4, even though this passage does not say so explicitly, Yahweh must have sworn by himself, as he did when he swore to Abraham, because there is no one greater by whom God could swear. Since God swore by himself it follows that the oath made to Christ in Ps 110:4 is certain. Thus, in Heb 6:16-17, the author’s point is that the character of God’s promise to the readers is certain insofar as Yahweh swore by himself when he swore that Christ would be a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
Some of the most difficult arguments to follow in Hebrew thinking involve this principle. They are difficult to follow because this is not the way Greeks think. Our Greek view of biblical interpretation usually begins with context. We believe if one passage does not share the same contextual environment as another passage, the two are not related. We think there is no necessary connection between a verse in the Tanakh about the blessing that comes with forgiveness and righteousness imputed to Abraham. But this is exactly the connection Paul makes in Romans 4:6-8. Paul uses a concept in Psalm 32 to justify his interpretation of Genesis 15. The key words (“take into account”) are connected with Gezerah Shavah. As Greek thinkers, we might see this as unfounded and forced, but for a Hebrew rabbi, it was absolutely brilliant.
What lesson do we learn? Reading Scripture requires understanding the mind of the author, not applying criteria we assume to be the only way to interpret the text. Most theological argument over interpretation begins by not appreciating the different thought patterns of the authors. Loosen up. Reconsider. Look again. Maybe the “one right answer” method just isn’t part of the plan.
Topical Index: Gezerah Shavah, principle #2, equal category, by himself, Hebrews 6:13, Romans 4:6-8
Without knowing Hebrew (being able to read it) it is more difficult to find these nuances that are present. I some times wonder if I have ever understood the scriptures.
Me too!
Hello Skip … and you are indeed way modest … praise The Lord! 🙂
Question for you knowing that the answer may in effect be a SWAG: “to what extent or level of understanding of The Word do you honestly think can be attained by a person without the luxury of: 1) Knowing basic Hebraic culture, context and thought patterns or 2) Having the ability to study the original text in Hebrew?”
I won’t be offended if you prefer not to answer … I am just curious given the apparent implications of the two posts above by Roy and you respectively. Despite my own studies using the Hebrew context and language …. the implications I allude to make me a bit uncomfortable.
Shalom
Hi Drew,
I think you pose a good “academic” question, CYndee has a good “spiritual” answer, and John has a good approach.
CYndee: “God speaks to each of us individually and yet wants us corporately to extend grace to the one another.”
John: “here is the answer, what is the question?”
I am definitely NOT a Hebrew scholar, nor will I ever be. I’m also not trying to make light of this; I’m just trying to put it in terms of something I can easily understand and remember. So I have dubbed this principle that of comparing “apples to apples.” The way I’ve been known to interpret this however, is that others think I am comparing apples to oranges. The short explanation being that they are both fruit; the long explanation no one is interested in. 🙂
I am thankful that God speaks to each of us individually and yet wants us corporately to extend grace to the one another. We ARE all in this together!
As my comment implies … I do have concerns with going over board. It is a fine line indeed.
I can vouch for believers that have little to zero Hebraic skills … yet at times their grasp and knowledge of The Word is clearly deep …. and profound. As such there can be no doubts that Ruach HaKodesh delivers/reveals …. when, what and to whom He wants!
Conversely there are many individuals (purportedly well heeled in The Word & with credentials … LOL ) that clearly do not get many important things out of The Word due to a lack of Hebraic understanding.
For me … the pursuit of the truth from a Hebraic context is important …. on the other hand I make darn sure that it is not a snare. ELOHIM works in many ways that I can not even begin to fathom … as such I do not discount the inputs from the faithful (regardless of academic pedigree or perceived intelligence level). To do so would be judgmental (sinful) as well as foolish!
Frankly through the years I have heard a variety of Christian ministers preach proper Torah …. not in the context of Hebraic roots but in the context of Spiritual revelation. Admittedly however these instances have been pretty rare … the point being however … if the Spirit is willing …. 🙂
OK, let me chime it here. I think Drew answered his own question. God works with donkeys so He can certainly work with us. Even when we don’t really get it. Nothing prevents God from showing His truth through any cultural filter, and we are the witnesses to that fact. Most of us are not Jewish and none of us grew up in the first century, but here we are. Bless His merciful character!
So, as a matter of obedience (which comes before understanding), God is certainly not limited by our lack of Hebrew. The message is plain enough. Obey Me and then you will know. The rub comes with those who wish to pick and choose what to obey. God works anyway, but we limit His effectiveness is the process.
BUT – and this is a big one – when it comes to exegesis, I don’t see how it’s possible to get it right without an Hebraic understanding. Exegesis is about what the text SAYS, and what it says is couched in first century Hebrew thought, so how can I expect to understand the author’s words if I ignore how the author thinks. This is the heart of most debates over meaning and most of the inadequacy of Christian commentary. The thinking does NOT begin with Matthew. It begins with Genesis. And it is all Hebraic.
So, for living the life – for obedience – the message is pretty clear in any translation (with the exception of those verses that have been altered as a result of theological presuppositions). But if we really want to know what the text says and what it means, we must be willing to dig into the culture and language and thought-forms of the author. God comes to us clothed as a human being. That means a particular time, place and culture. He did it on purpose. We ignore it at our peril.
Well stated brother! Very concise and defines why the cultural context and language is important …. yet you defend the truth …. that Yeshua’s light is everywhere and in all languages.
I like your version better than mine …. Do you mind if I pilfer this? 🙂
It’s not about me, is it? Take what you like. Leave the rest.
Man, this is really shaking my ‘belief system’! And I love it! God does show His truth, but He also does it on His time, not mine. This second principle, I knew nothing about it, in spite of my studies in theology. Nor any of the others, come to think of it. This really puts my understanding of the NT upside down, no, the right side up! I have studied 2Tim. 2:15 for so long, based sermons on it, but now I understand I never understood what Paul was really telling me. This hurts, and gives joy at the same time. I can never repair what I’ve clearly said wrong. But what joy! Reading His Words as if for the first time once again. I hope there is a chance of telling the ecclesia what I am learning every day now.
Is there a book which explains these principles more elaborately? I must know more! Or else I can never explain this to the people in my congregation.
By the way: the youngsters loved the Biblestudy on man and woman in Genesis this summer! They are raised in another educational system than we were, thirty years ago. No problem accepting what God says about ish and ishah. The elderly, that’s a different story. I must be carefull not to evoke tensions. Please pray with me the ‘new’ teachings will not make schisms here.
Kees, Holland
“Is there a book which explains these principles more elaborately?”
Hi Kees,
Well, these principles are theoretical and philosphical IMO, so I’ll leave that aspect of the question to our teacher/philosopher, but my favorite book on hermeneutics is translated The Conflict of Interpretations, by Paul Ricoeur (1974).
But the best book that I’ve ever read on Jesus, which was recommended to me by Skip, is called Jesus The Jewish Theologian by Brad H Young.
Just got the book off the book shelf and it opened to “THE SON, THE STONE, AND THE BUILDER”
p. 218 section 3:
Stone = Jesus the Son of David
…. The rabbis said:
“The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner ” (Ps 118:22): “the builders” [mentioned in the verse] refer to Samuel and Jesse. The words “has become the head of the corner” refer to David because he became the head [that is the greatest] of the kings.
Sort of makes you want to meet these rabbis, doesn’t it?