Who Could Leave?

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ehurst

If you can begin to absorb the Hebrew outlook on time versus the western emphasis on efficiency, then you will understand the seeming lack of hurry for most things in Scripture. And the few times you read “make haste” become all the more significant for their rarity.

The Hebrews didn’t suffer from the make-things-happen mindset. Their emphasis was staying faithful under testing. They were convinced far too much of their existence was in the hands of God, not in their own hands. It shows up best in how people with a spiritual-moral orientation are patient, particularly in their patience with people.

It’s one thing to say, “Time heals all wounds.” It’s another thing to get the focus off the goal of healing and onto the time and process as God’s management prerogative. As noted in Pageau’s explanation of time versus space, we learn that time cleanses and restores, instead of tapping our feet impatiently, in a hurry to get on with the things we believe we can change.

If you come under conviction that something in your life justifies praying about it, then giving God time is also justified. The anxiety of children about time and the fear of boredom are not fitting for servants of the Lord. People are the greatest treasure in this life, and giving God time to work in their hearts is not so different from waiting for fruit to ripen in season.

As you might expect, at any given time I am praying several people through the process of changing their outlook from the childlike western “let’s get this done” orientation into a more Hebraic spiritual orientation. They require time, but the goal is not in getting done, but in seeing them actually ripen and become treasured members of the family. As long as my spirit says they are worth it, I’ll put up with their chatter and challenges. We need them in the covenant family, and bearing spiritual children is no different from incubating literal children in that certain developmental tasks must finish.

Keep in mind that in Hebrew, there are only two verb tenses: actions completed, and those still in process. And if we are honest, is it any different as the Lord works with each of us? Have any of us advanced so far that we can leave the Father’s care?

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Who Could Leave?

More Word, Less Image

Posted on October 8, 2024 by ehurst

A major element in what we consider child misbehavior is visual stimulation. This is well known, but seldom stated. The way the human brain works, visual stimulation is very much like any other stimulant — it becomes addictive.

If you want to see better behavior in children, reduce the cultural emphasis on visual stimulation. The faster, the more complex and bolder the colors, the more it affects them. This includes TV, all computer video, etc. And don’t imagine that you can escape as an adult. You can develop an addiction later in life. However, with children it’s rather like gaining an addiction in the womb; different aspects of the brain’s development continue throughout life, but the worst damage is done by about age 12.

Let me propose an experiment: Try reducing your own exposure to visual stimulation for a little while. The longer you do, the more your spiritual life will grow. Did you think we were kidding about the difference between western and Hebrew thinking? The Hebrew orientation is the one God designed for His people, and it’s not a visual orientation. It’s auditory; it’s not about intellectual ideals, but about moral authority. A part of this would be reducing the visual stimulation effect of things like smart phones.

I realize that we cannot simply force our world to comply with our demands. What I’m suggesting here is your own internal orientation. If you consciously resist the temptation to visual stimulation, you gain in spiritual strength. In the biblical approach to human morality, text and speech are everything. The flesh prefers visual stimulation; the spirit calls for less of that.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Message Priorities

Posted on October 7, 2024 by ehurst

Let me propose a thought experiment.

“This world is not my home.” Do you take that seriously? Our recent study in Hebrew versus western thinking should produce very real results. If the focus of your attention is morals, and your primary operation is via words, then it calls for some changes.

Let’s remind ourselves that spiritual warfare is primarily people changing themselves under God’s hand. Your biggest enemy is inside of you, as it were. The primary turf over which you battle the forces of Darkness is yourself. What are your priorities? The goal of our warfare includes in part the utter necessity of reaching people for the gospel message. Turning your life around to that purpose is a monumental task.

The way of warfare for the world is to destroy physical property. The world tends to view humans as simply movable property. What kind of target would we be? Would a missile strike stop you from gathering, from coming together to do whatever you do in this world? Would it silence the gospel? Does your gospel mission really depend on physical resources?

Further, do you really need to gather physically in order to promote the gospel message? Would you be an easy target that way?

Granted, I’ve said often enough that the Scripture encourages our emphasis on physical contact. Still, in the exigencies of today, could you get by without it, if that makes you vulnerable to Satan’s designs? Do we know how to love each other as Christ did, regardless of geographical displacement?

More importantly, can we come up with a transforming message that removes the dependence on written materials? Is it really necessary to have all the visual aids, or can we depend on the Holy Spirit to drive the Word home in us via our hearts?

Let’s pray and contemplate how we can transmit the germ of our message, what makes our path of faith unique. How can we get the most bang for the buck so that it requires less transmission? We should organize our message in layers. We should stop to consider what is truly the essence of what we should say, and then if time and resources permit, more layers of the message content based on the priorities of God.

Right now, we have generous opportunities. Let’s take advantage of this, because all too soon, things will get tight. We need to be ready. There is a tactical side to the gospel.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Message Priorities

HTCG Summary

Posted on October 6, 2024 by ehurst

Summary and Psychological Foundation of the Differences

Boman devotes these last few pages to restating his thesis that it is best to synthesize the Greek/western viewpoint and the Hebrew into something better than either — at least, that’s what he almost says. The summary is full of standard academic blather that tries to sound encouraging, and he really doesn’t add anything useful.

——–

It’s not as if we learned nothing useful from the book, but it was still rather disappointing. I’m not sure Boman understands the Hebrew culture and language as well as others I’ve read from. It’s actually pretty hard to judge because he isn’t as much a fan as he seems of the Hebrew epistemology. In the end, he remains a very western man who likes to imagine he’s open minded, as if that were something of great value.

Finally, I’m not sure I’d recommend you invest the money for it. I’ll keep my copy, but I’m not likely to open it again any time soon.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

NT Doctrine — Hebrews 9

Posted on October 5, 2024 by ehurst

The author lays out his core argument: The Covenant of Christ is an eternal covenant rooted in Heaven, not a national covenant rooted on earth, as the Covenant of Moses was.

Having just declared that a new covenant was necessary, he goes back and reviews how the old one worked. It had rules about rituals, the Tabernacle layout, furnishings, and those curtains. He runs through the basic design of things, including the Ark of the Covenant and what was in it. The rituals were required on a regular basis.

The author didn’t want to get bogged down in the details, but the priests only entered the main chamber on a regular basis, and the High Priest saw the actual holy place representing God’s throne room only once yearly. Even that single visit required offering blood for his own ritual purity, and then for the nation as a whole. And even with all that, the High Priest was at risk of dying from God’s wrath.

Keeping peace with God was a very solemn and fearful thing. All of those rituals only covered the unintentional sins, not any actual rebellion against God. The whole package presumed an honest heart in submission to Jehovah. It could not solve a bad attitude. If they had clear hearts, then it allowed them gain access to the covenant blessings God had promised for those at peace with Him. The way was not fully opened as long as the old system remained.

Christ stands as the Lord of a new covenant. There is no mass of rituals and veils; the way into God’s Presence and peace is opened — the blessings that were only hinted at by the symbols of the old. The Elect of old never had any kind of assurance that they would see Eternity. In Christ, the Elect can receive that assurance of adoption as children of the Father. Jesus wiped away the sense of doubt they had harbored under the Old Covenant.

The author then shifts to the imagery of an inheritance. The one who made the will must die before it is revealed. It’s just a proposal until then. Well, that first covenant was attested by death, and the bloodshed of ritual offering animals. Moses engaged in quite a rigmarole with the people to get their attention and encourage them to take it seriously. That blood was sprinkled on everything.

Just so, since the most ancient times of human memory, sin could not be covered without some bloodshed. Though as fallen creatures, we all deserved to die for our own sinful nature, God from the earliest times outside the Garden accepted the bloodshed of some proxy sacrifice as a symbol of just how grave this whole business was.

Well, the heavenly sacrifice Jesus made also included bloodshed, the final sacrifice for which all previous sacrifices were just a symbol. Approaching the actual throne of God in Heaven required a real sacrifice of genuinely innocent blood, someone who could carry the burden of the Fall.

It was an eternal sacrifice. Otherwise, we’d have the silly spectacle of Jesus having to die on the Cross again and again. The long period of symbolism is over; at the end of human probation, the final price has been paid once for all. When humans die, they face their individual judgment. When Christ returns, it will be the Final Judgment of all things. Are we not eagerly awaiting that day?

Note: For the Hebrews, the term “salvation” refers to the Covenant blessings. The blessings of the Old Covenant were merely a symbol of our Eternal blessings as Children of Resurrection in the final Promised Land.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on NT Doctrine — Hebrews 9

HTCG 05

Posted on October 4, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 5: Logical Thinking and Psychological Understanding

Section A: Logic and Psychology

Boman separates between logic (impartial and objective) and psychology (engaging sympathetically) in approaching reality — thinking versus understanding. But in actual experience, the two are inseparable. Still, he says, we must keep a theoretical distinction for the sake of scholarship.

Section B: The Warrant for the Two Viewpoints

He mentions Kant (logic) and Bergson (psychology) as two schools of thought debating on where to begin. What’s the foundation of knowing? Boman outlines the two approaches and concludes that they are both mistaken when they try to exclude the other.

He goes on to identify the Hebrew with the psychological and Greek as primarily logical. It would be a mistake to assume that the Hebrew approach is more primitive and less developed; it is simply different. Boman approaches the idea that the Hebrews were so focused on morals and moral reasoning that they considered systematic logic as a hindrance to human redemption.

Section C: The Independence of the Israelite Thinker

The genius of Hebrew writers was not in creativity as innovation. On the contrary, they always claimed to restore the ancient ways. This was carried into church theology with its claim to being apostolic. Rather, the genius was in absorbing foreign material and reworking it to remove idolatrous traces and confirm the singularity of Jehovah. Some sections of the Old Testament are clearly the product of very independent minds.

Unfortunately, it’s all spoiled again by Boman’s JEPD theory and partitioning of the text into primitive versus developed theology.

Section D: The Formal Peculiarity of Each Kind of Thinking

Boman reviews the Greek emphasis on thinking with their eyes, and contrasts it with the well established notion that Hebrews thought with their ears. Instead of visions of things, it was for the Hebrews the word spoken and heard.

The Greek concept of truth was something unveiled and seen clearly. For the Hebrews truth was a matter of being faithful and consistent to your calling. Hebrews were not interested in what can be verified as objectively accurate; they were interested in personal commitment to what was declared by higher authority.

In Greek, the word logos was derived from lego — “gather”. Thus, it meant collection and analysis of data. The Hebrew word for “understanding” is bin (literally: dismember, separate), from which root we gain the word binah — comprehension, discernment, insight. The image is to carve off the junk and keep the meat. Once the moral purpose is identified, nothing else matters.

I believe Boman misses when he tries to explain how parables are aimed at overcoming the initial psychological resistance people have to something they are told. It’s not about psychology, but moral truth in the heart. Parables are meant to point out something for exploration so that people will find the Lord in their own contemplations.

He’s correct when he identifies similar Hebrew words as ways of making a moral point, versus the Greek furnishing a proof. Boman mushes up the effort to explain the Hebrew use of the concept of “seeing” truth. In the Hebrew mind, the term “seeing” refers to recognition of someone or something you already know. When Hebrews argue, the point is that others “see” — recognize the character of God in their words.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 04

Posted on October 3, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 4: Symbolism and Instrumentalism

In this chapter Boman starts out bouncing off of Canon Oliver Quick, an Anglican priest who wrote a good bit on philosophy.

Section A: The Hebrew Conception of the Thing

The mainstream view is that the Hebrew dabhar (normally “word”) can be translated “thing” in the sense of an issue for discussion, but it cannot indicate an unnamed object. Much closer is the Hebrew word kelî, essentially a “tool” or “implement” — musical instrument, weapon, vessel for liquids, an ornament. As always with Hebrew, the word indicates functionality. Finally, the Hebrew word ḥephets indicates trinkets or objects of desire (having a value), with the emphasis on someone treasuring it.

Section B: The Greek Conception of the Thing

Opposite the Hebrew active frame of reference, the Greek mind passively seeks to observe and understand the things in its environment. This becomes a clue to what is beyond the immediate environment. This is considered the prerequisite for action. Activity and knowledge are separate concepts, yet inseparable in practice.

Things are symbols to our knowledge and implements of our actions. They can also be riddles or hindrances, respectively. And for two pages Boman wanders over the terrain of abstract reasoning about the implications in human reasoning.

He notes that the Hebrew mind was more about metaphysics rather than physics. I would add that the moral purpose of things reigned supreme in their reckoning. They didn’t waste time trying to gain human control over the reality of life because they assumed it would bring only limited results anyway. The Greek mind was obsessed with gaining mastery, trying to maximize the cooperation of knowledge and use.

Eventually Boman gets around to pointing out that for Hebrews, things are signs as well as symbols, whereas for the Greek they are indicators of ultimate reality. For the Hebrew, ultimate reality is unknowable; for the Greek it is assumed to be within human reach. For the Hebrew, God is a moral entity known by His actions, and for the Greek, the ultimate reality is about being.

Boman does not say that Hebrew wisdom is revealed from above, and Greek wisdom in gained by human effort, but it certainly helps to understand all of his academic blather. This goes on for several pages, as usual ending in yet another effort to justify not embracing the Hebrew outlook, but trying to blend it with his Platonic views.

Excursus: The Transparence of God

This is Boman trying to show off again. He mentions that God is seen in western minds as both transcendent and immanent. These are normally mutually exclusive terms. He calls for a third term: God is not only above and in the world, but through the world. It’s more of where he left off in the previous section above. He tries to connect it with the Doctrine of the Trinity, and it should be obvious how that works out: Father (above), Christ (in) and the Holy Spirit (through) the world.

Thus, he wants to introduce the concept of God’s “transparence”. If you know the world at all, you will know God.

He goes on at length striving to justify sticking with the Greek view (of Plato) when approaching theology. He even tries to sanctify it by noting that the Hellenized world Paul traveled was still heavily influenced by pagan mysticism, and so he had no trouble offering a sort of Greek-Hebrew hybrid. But in Athens, it was pure Greek and they weren’t receptive. It required later generations of church scholars without the Hebrew background to make inroads with Greek intellectuals.

I’ve already addressed this often enough on this blog.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , | Comments Off on HTCG 04

HTCG 03k

Posted on October 2, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section E: History and Nature

Part 3: Functional Cosmology versus Visual Cosmology

It has been a common assumption that Hebrew cosmology can be interpreted visually. You can find lots of drawings, and they are all wrong. Just as Hebrews never offered a visual of anything else, their concept of cosmology was also non-visual. Any other understanding is reading things back into the Hebrew Scriptures.

For example, there are numerous passages indicating that the Hebrews understood that rain came from clouds, often blowing in off the sea. They also believed that in every case, rain came from the hand of God — references to “windows of Heaven”. That image often refers to any kind of blessing, not just rain. If the Hebrews clearly understand at least some of the mechanics of actual water drops falling from sea clouds, it is patently silly to read their poetic symbolism literally.

Boman notes we cannot guess how much astronomy the Hebrews borrowed from Babylon, but there are too many times and places when the Hebrews also borrowed their cosmological imagery and astrology to express their own confidence in Jehovah. (Boman seems unaware of the idea that Hebrews mocked other religions by recasting their symbols.) But in most Semitic writings, they simply don’t bother to differentiate between symbolism and more literal science. In Babylon, there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology; the physical facts always carried a religious meaning. The Hebrews were no different in their outlook.

The Greeks would see history as part of their study of nature; it was all a matter of sensory observations and making sense of it. The Hebrews reversed that: nature was part of their sense of history. Moral function is everything. God made the world as a place to put man. Boman still stumbles over his precious JEPD theory in trying to explain the development of Hebrew thinking, insisting that there are two creation accounts in Genesis from widely different eras. However, he does note that if you stop trying to read the two creation accounts visually and start thinking about them functionally, they fit together nicely.

Of course, the Hebrew word often translated “heaven” is actually “sky”. It is symbolism quite intentionally. Boman notes that any mention of “heaven” as God’s residence doesn’t mean eternity. Heaven is also subject to removal when this world has run its course. I have said before that “heaven” refers to a temporary accommodation where God camps out as long as this world exists. It’s not here, but it’s also not Eternity proper.

Then again, when you read that God will dwell among His people, it’s a moral proximity, not physical, much the same as when we read that He is in the Temple. Most common attempts by church scholars to portray a visual cosmology of the Bible are actually an injection of something like Medieval cosmology. It’s not particularly Greek and certainly not Hebrew.

I would say that even Heiser’s image of Hebrew cosmology is a mistake.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 03j

Posted on October 1, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section E: History and Nature

Part 1: Historical Understanding among Greeks and Israelites

Boman divides modern historians into two camps. There are those who insist the Greeks were the masters of history writing. There are also those convinced that the Greek conception of history is quite limited against the broader spectrum. The real difference between the two sides is a different approach to what “history” means.

The first is objective, seeking to describe the events and, when possible, discernible causes. The latter is more about teleology — things are known by their purpose. Finally he gets around to telling us that the latter is the Hebrew cultural approach. It’s all about God’s actions and revelation. The Greeks are looking for patterns that repeat across historical events to understand why things happen from a human perspective.

For once, Boman really gets it right: God is not known through propositions, but through His actions. It’s not systematic, but history is a record of things God did, and nothing ever quite repeats. He calls us to join in with the covenant family to claim the rich heritage of what He offered to and through His people. We can then claim that He brought us out of Egypt, too. The Covenant Nation is a person, and we participate in that identity.

Further, eschatology is simply the conclusion of the history begun at Creation. Mixing the two viewpoints is a mistake, Boman says, and results in things like Hegelian Dialectics and Evolution, mixing a unique and purposeful narrative with scientific reductionism.

Part 2: The Proclamation of Creation in the Old Testament and the Doctrine of Creation in Plato

Because of Boman’s candy-stick (JEPD Theory), he suggests early Hebrews didn’t teach that God created the world. That arose later. He maunders on about all the events that caused them to eventually state the doctrine. With rapturous prose he tries to build the image of God as creating all the time, not just once at the beginning of things.

Then, once again, he tries to marry Plato with the Hebrew outlook again in how the philosopher approached the question of creation. He admits only slight differences, and two pages of blather don’t help us understand anything useful about the topic of the book.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

HTCG 03i

Posted on September 30, 2024 by ehurst

Chapter 3: Time and Space

Section D: Quantity and Number: Spatially Quantitative and Dynamically Qualitative Quantities

Boman really drags out this chapter, but still misses some things. He notes that, to understand the Greek spatial conception of things, we need to see how it shines brightest in the mathematics of geometry. What he doesn’t mention is that the term “geometry” means “earth-measuring”. If there’s anything that tells us how spatially oriented their thinking was, that should do it. The implication is that it’s the field of math for measuring the planet as the nearest element of space itself. They included things like squares and cubes, and their roots, etc.

We know historically that the Hebrews stand alone in having never bothered with math, in contrast to the other Semitic races. It was the arrival of the Semitic influence that saw the Babylonian development of algebra. And while we know that geometry is the drawing of what algebra abstracts, and that algebra abstracts what geometry draws, the Babylonians actually went farther with algebra than the Greeks did with geometry.

(Note: the word “algebra” is derived from an Arabic term for figuring out fractions.)

All the Hebrew terms that seem to translate into English as geometrical terms actually have no such origin. There are no triangles or squares, only vague concepts that bring those figures as results. The Hebrew word for “compass” is merely a drawing tool. The words translated as “round” are more aimed at things which naturally turn out round simply because it’s the easiest shape for handling some materials.

Factoid: Do you know that “silver coins” in Israel were originally rectangles cut from thin sheets? They weren’t worth the trouble to strike them in rounds; as long as the mass was consistent on the scales, nobody worried about their shape.

The Hebrew word associated with great spaces or long journeys (rabh) is the noun form of a verb meaning “to become many; to be thick or dense”. A few other words used that way have similar meanings. The opposite terms meaning “small” all come from a root meaning of “diminish or reduce”. Again, not abstract concepts nor visual but actions. The image of something being bigger is not “greater” as in Greek, but simply that something draws away at a distance. That was the expression used to declare Saul a head taller than the average Israeli.

We are aware that Hebrew share one thing with the most primitive languages: numbering is conceptually one or two. A few primitive languages go as far as three. Indo-European languages appear to have developed this from the image of people seeing themselves as one, someone they speak to as two, and maybe a third person they can indicate — I, you, him. It’s visual. Not with Hebrew; it’s based on the concept of repeating an action, like tapping or stomping. Boman doesn’t mention that a great many expressions in Hebrew indicating numbering stops at two, because of the moral implication of being single-minded versus double-minded, though they had words for numbers of things that required actual counting.

Thus, the rise of the number seven in Hebrew comes from the Sabbath cycle, of course. He also doesn’t mention that quite naturally, the Hebrew word for “seven” has the additional implication of “making sacred or holy”. But other words for counting things are typically tinged with moral qualities, rarely a simple matter of abstract numbering. Grammatical plurals (-im for masculine and -ôth feminine) are often purely symbolic in that having a bunch is all about intensity and greatness, not how numerous — elohim is the most common example, meaning “plenitude of power”.

So, Boman suggests we treat Hebrew “plurals” as intensives. Along this same line of thinking, Hebrew language expressed the concept of “every” quite often by using the plural noun twice — yôm yôm (“days days”) is the expression for “every day”. Only when they indicated the whole total together did it switch back to singular.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on HTCG 03i