Yeshua and the Prophet
“He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal.” John 12:25
Hates – In Greek, the root is miseo. It usually implies active ill will toward someone or something. It is the opposite of agapao (to love, cf. Matthew 5:43). This is the same verb used in Luke 14:26 where Yeshua compares the love of family with the love for Himself. A lot of people have stumbled over this Greek word. It just doesn’t seem right to suggest that I have to “hate” my family or my life in order to be a follower of the Way. Maybe part of the problem is that Yeshua spoke Hebrew and this Greek verb is a translation of His real words. Let’s take a look.
There are two Hebrew verbs that could be translated “hate.” The first is sane, a word found in Exodus 20:5. This word is contrasted with ahav (love). It describes the rebellious wicked, the things that oppose God, the unjust and evil. In human terms, it is applied to enemies and those who seek to harm others. Revulsion expressed by sane is hatred for something unholy.
But as we discovered in Ezekiel 20:43, there is another Hebrew word for “hate.” That word is qut. It still describes revulsion, but we know from the prophet that this word involves self-loathing. It is the word of choice for reflection on resident wickedness in our past lives.
Which Hebrew word is most likely the one Yeshua used? If we choose sane, we must conclude that my life in this world is an abomination to God. It stands in stark contrast to love. It is nothing but abhorrent evil. It is totally depraved and worthless. Reading the verse this way supports several theological tenets of strict Calvinism. Obviously, there is a long history of interpretation behind this reading. But there is another choice here. If we imagine that Yeshua used the Hebrew word qut in the same way that Ezekiel used the word, then this verse becomes an assessment of the revulsion I feel about my life apart from God. It isn’t necessary for all of my life to be evil, corrupt and worthless. It is only necessary that self-evaluation determines the direction of my former life was useless, pointless and unholy. The reason for this conclusion is obvious. I lived according to the measurement of this world and those measurements do not reflect the true nature of the universe or the character of the Creator.
Ah, but you might object, “Doesn’t Yeshua contrast love and hate here? Doesn’t that indicate that He is using sane?” But what we discover on closer examination is that this translation does not contrast miseo with agapao. Instead, the verb translated “love” is phileo. “He who loves his life as if it were his best friend loses it.” The translator indicates that Yeshua didn’t draw a contrast between ahav and sane. He used another Hebrew word for “love,” perhaps ra’yah or dodh. Both are connected to enjoyment and sensual experience, not to sacrificial benevolence. We won’t know for sure, but it certainly seems possible that Yeshua is not endorsing a doctrine of total depravity, nor is He requiring that I despise my life as completely evil. He is telling me that making friends with the world is moving in the wrong direction and until I recognize that the world’s standards lead to disaster, I cannot be His disciple.
Perhaps we learn something important here. Our lives are expressions of both good and evil, even before we encounter the one true God. Yeshua’s comment gives us hope, not despair. There is time to change direction. There is time to assess. There is another way for us.
Topical Index: hate, miseo, sane, qut, depravity, John 12:25, Ezekiel 20:43, Exodus 20:5, Luke 14:26, Matthew 5:43
Great article but the line…
“Reading the verse this way supports several theological tenants of strict Calvinism”
Should read…
“Reading the verse this way supports several theological tenets of strict Calvinism”.
A tenant is someone who pays rent to use land or a building whereas a tenet is a principle, doctrine, or belief held as a truth, as by some group.
You may think me picky but this is a common mistake and if it goes uncorrected is in danger of spreading!
Thanks for the great articles. I really enjoy them.
Ken, when I began reading your post, I thought it was something I had written!! : ) When I reply to a private email, leaving the incoming one in place, I often correct something in the original, hoping the sender will notice! : )
It’s nice to know I am not alone! Thanks Helen.
Sorry. You’re right and I have fixed it.
Thanks Skip. I can sleep easy now!
Once l was shocked by this versicle too and l find in a dictoriary what the word means or it use for and my language spanish and in the reina-valera use the word aborrecer and l always used this word as hate but this word in spanish is to love less not to hate and l belive that’s one of ha satan strategy is to confuse even with our own words
Antonio, I did a study many years ago on the subject of love versus hate. I was told that the word “hate” meant “to love less”. Isn’t that interesting? Thanks for sharing.
The idea of “total depravity” can be understood in two different ways. 1) that every aspect of man’s being – his total being – is affected by the Fall. Or, 2) man is so totally depraved that there is never any good comes out of his words or actions. You seem to be referring to #2, rather than #1, and maybe a future posting will clarify the issue.
This whole teaching leads us back to Gan Eden. Chava was deceived to partake of the tree of “mixture”, good and evil and Adam knew better. Shaul talks about this waring inside between this mixing or this struggle within. As a follower of Moshiach part of the process of maturing in the walk is to no longer to partake of that tree but partake of the Tree of Life the Torah. The Torah has many verses dealing with not mixing the seed, vines, certain fibers, animals, holy with the common and the list goes on. The hebrew language is very agriculturally & biologically based. The seed of YHVH is His Word and it will send forth a sprout, then a shoot, leaves, a bud, a blossom, fruit and with in that fruit another seed. His Word(seed) will only produce like kind. How many of us have been producing mixture by not following His Torah the Tree of Life mixing pagan practices with His ways, eating, teaching and wading in the river down stream that is full of pollution. This “love – hate” cycle can only be repaired through the Tree of Life the Messiah Yeshua the SEED of this tree in which we are to be of.
There is something in “this” world we actually should “hate”. Oh.., -but you say we shouldn’t “hate” at all! That is not entirely true!
I scanned the article today for a particular (mostly foreign) word but found it absent. It is the word, “sin.” We do not use this word where I work. You probably don’t hear this word spoken where you work either, unless you are employed by a “church.” I doubt we here this word employed at the dinner table. Never have heard this word from any one of the anchors on the evening news, not on any major news networks. No, this word “sin” has fallen out of favor, and is rapidly becoming obsolete.
Not so with G-d. For you see, G-d hates sin. In any form or fashion, YHWH will not tolerate sin. Skip, you are the wordsmith, you are the moderator of this blog- should we “be concerned about “sin?” Is there such a thing as “sin” in this technologically advanced, oh so sophisticated and informed world we live in today ? I may (later,if I have time) “google” the word “sin” and see what comes up.
The Bible states “all have sinned”. (Romans 3.23) If we were to ask one hundred random people today- “what is sin?”- how many would even have a clue, or again how many have even heard the word? How many know? -G-d hates sin.
If G-d’s word is true (and by now I do hope we realize it is..). And as the book declares- “all have sinned”, and if this is true,- “I” am a part of “all” therefor I am a sinner. What now? -Is there any hope at all or should I just give up and continue in sin?
Is there an answer for the “sin” question? If “It is written” -G-d is holy and if I am a sinner.. -What now? How shall the two be reconciled?
It is the word, “sin.” We do not use this word where I work. You probably don’t hear this word spoken where you work either, unless you are employed by a “church.”
Hi Carl,
That’s a good point.
In the world we live in, I would be concerned if someone walked up to me and said “I am a sinner.”
I would fear for their well being and think they were mentally deranged.
Two summers ago when I was walking Max down by the creek I had such an experience.
A very tall gaunt long haired man about 30 was behind me on the trail speaking of sin.
And he was shouting at the top of his voice, having a very emotional conversation with God.
He was dressed in plain clothes but he looked mid-eastern, like a prophet in the movies.
Because I was at the bottom of the barrel emotionally speaking myself, I paid attention to him.
But he was clearly a danger to society IMO and I did not let him catch up to me.
Personally, I do not have a problem with total depravity on any level. Without Christ, we are all less than holy. Holiness or depravity…I see no middle ground here. There may be a process involved in holiness as we grow up in Him, depravity is a state as opposite holiness…as far as the east is from the west. Only the life-giving God is able to change that!
Hello Skip,
Sorry for my bad grammar. English is not my first taal.Mij was always taught that the word “hate” “second place” means.
This would perfectly match what’s being said about Esau, God “hates” him = put him on the second spot after Jacob. A text from Luc 14 is also much clearer: you may not be your father and mother above our king (so your parents come in second place).
Is it true that in Hebrew the root of the number two (sjeni) same as in the word hate (sena)?
I thought I might share that we were listening to Rabbi Friedman of Minnesota teaching recently and he said that the sages understand the reference to the ‘Knowledge of Good and Evil’ (in Hebrew: haDa’at tov V’ra) not to point to the two ends of a scale. He said that the phrase ‘good and evil’ is thought of, in Hebrew, as an idiomatic antonym and it should be seen as meaning ‘everything’ (other examples of antonym’s could be: “rich and poor alike”, or “the long and short of it”). The Hebrew, we were told, could be translated the “tree of knowledge, both good and evil” (not: no ‘of’) or “the tree of all knowledge”. Therefore, it can be seen that the serpent tells Havah that when she eats from the tree that she will be like God and will have ‘knowledge of the whole picture’. This appeals to Havah because it aligns with “the appeal of enhancing her resident capacity” (Skip TW – ‘Balancing Act’).
The Rabbi was saying (I hope I’ve got this right) that we need to understand that, at first, the Man and the Woman would have experienced two ‘dimensions’ – the first dimension is ‘Echad’, where all there is, is God. The second dimension (the creation without sin) witnesses to the fact that God is One and that God is good. When Havah ate from the tree, she was anticipating gaining knowledge of the ‘whole picture’ – but this could never happen as the finite mind cannot comprehend the whole and infinite reality of Adonai Echad. What happened, instead, was that she initiated a ‘false reality’. In other words, the outcome of sin is that the true ‘reality’ or ‘dimension’ is altered (this alteration is, of course, very evident when we read the detail of God’s disciplinary action in the Garden).
Rabbi Friedman went on to say that every human being has the deep sense that what they see is not all that there is; “there has to be something more than/other than this.” To believers, it is clear that what is “other than” is God and, it is likely, that we would agree that there is no purpose for humankind outside of a relationship with God. The temptation to sin (as we can see from the serpent’s conversation with Havah) begins when we question the intentions of the ‘Other.’ As we begin doubting God’s motivation – and whether He really does have ‘good’ in mind for us – we begin to separate ourselves from that ‘reality’ that witnesses to the fact that God is One, and we put distance between ourselves and God. We begin to question whether God does know what is good for us and consider that, perhaps, we might actually be better placed to make the decision as to what is good for us and what is not.
The rabbi said that each moment we spend actively considering this moves us from the reality where God is All, towards a dimension where we might acknowledge that God exists, but believe that He may actually be deliberately depriving us of what is ‘good for us’. Obviously, we rebel against His rule in varying degrees; sometimes He is king… sometimes He is not. The more we entertain the notion that God is keeping something from us, the more we move towards a reality where God is irrelevant and, even, where He may not exist at all as far as we are concerned. This is the false reality where we are not only the centre, but the king.
Of course, the result of the first couple’s sin saw them cast out of God’s immediate presence in the Garden. An interesting thing has happened – in Ch1 of Genesis (dimension #1), God was the central figure but, in Ch2, God Himself placed man in the central position and delegated responsibility to him. [It is a scientific fact that man is the actual median when we consider the range of micro and macrocosms that are known at this time.] The Jews believe that this teaches us that the whole of Creation was made for Adam and yet, the Talmud says, if man becomes too haughty he should remember that “even gnats were created before him”! Also, as Ch2 of Genesis begins, Scripture uses a different name for God; He is now called by the Name, the tetragrammaton. This name change sums up the intimacy of the dimension and the goodness of God. Note that the serpent does not use this term; the serpent uses the term ‘Elohim’ to emphasise Havah’s lower status.
We know from Skip’s teaching that the serpent in used in the Torah to represent the mindset of those involved in pagan worship – practises that redefine God’s sovereignty and Oneness. Those who make the choice to ignore God and His ways, create a self-sufficient, self-obsessed world where there are little or no limitations or commitments, and where unfulfilled personal desire is the motivator. The rabbi described how, once we enter the dimension where we question God’s intentions, that we visualise His rules as barriers to our being able to satisfy what we think are our basic needs. Havah, who was honestly motivated by the desire to provide and care for Adam, allows her interpretation of what is needed to undermine God’s position. (When the Other is more powerful than I am, I become less.) Therefore, in order to get what I think I might need, I have to be promoted to a place where it is my opinion of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for me that matters.
In utilising the ‘knowledge’, Adam and Havah created a dimension where ‘evil’ is no longer just a theoretical possibility. God calls out to the man hiding in the bushes: “Where are you?” There is no longer a close relationship between God and man – there is an obvious distance and mankind feels shame.
As usual, this is just a ‘teaser’ from what we heard, but we thought that it made the concept of the Tree of Knowledge a little clearer for us. Shavua Tov!
This is good for me. Calvinism is fundamentalism. And we were taught that we were supposed to somehow “hate” ourselves. Which I could never conjure up. I certainly could see that I had done some very bad things and feel very sorry for them, but hate myself, or think of myself as totally corrupt seemed to me to be an affront to the God who said what He created was “good”.
Sure we fell. But everything in us did not become evil. Even as sinners we obviously could still manage to actually do some very good things. And even more, after becoming a Christian we seem to have power to do even better things. But yes, evil is still present in the form of habits that are embedded in our “bodies” just like all our habits.
Good and bad habits are stored in our bodies. That is why we are to “practice” the good things Paul talks about. Just like when I practiced the piano till I could play the song without thinking, or learned to drive where it is simply natural and I can do it virtually without thinking, so our righteous behavior can be practiced till it is normal and natural. We practice till they are stored in our bodies.
That is NOT what I was taught as a Calvinist/Fundamentalist! I was taught I would ALWAYS be evil. You get what you believe I think! I am so glad Skip does such a good job of debunking Fundamentalism/Calvinism. What damage it has wrought upon so very many.
Pat – We’re glad it helped. Judaism doesn’t believe that we ‘fell’ in the way that Christianity teaches, nor does it believe in ‘original sin’ being passed from generation to generation. However, that means that many other aspects of Christianity become entirely suspect…
I have decided (after some of you pressed me) to publish the doctoral dissertation I did years ago on the Greek influence on Christian theology. The book should be available soon. It looks at the connections between Parmenides, Xenophanes, Plato and Aristotle and the development of early Christian theology. It demonstrates that the Hebraic views were deliberately ignored or rejected in order to implant Greek ideals into the Christian framework and that this framework became the basis for nearly all modern Christian theology. It’s a pretty difficult read but I am sure some of you will find it useful. “Sinful nature” (a favorite of the NIV) is only one of many theological shibboleths caught up in the Greek paradigm.
Hi Skip,
Sounds like fun! Doesn’t it also look at Acquinas and Popper?