My thoughts on Hebrew vs Greek thinking, what are yours?
- Thread starter RedTent
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Redtent,
I think the thread is very challenging and interesting. But, what I do not understand is why are you so focused on the language, instead on their thinking (like the title of the thread says). Although i do not doubt one bit that the language expresses the deepness of one's understanding, mindset etc., I agree with the user JGIG that the differences between the hebrew mindset and the greek thinking lies in how they relate to Jesus Christ. I do not know very much about the hebrew culture and I am glad that you are very into this because there are a lot of interesting things that I learn from you.
So, notice that I put in bold the words mindset and thinking. It seems that I belittle the hebrews but I do not! It's just that one of the reasons why they rejected Christ was because of their mindset, right? I am not a bible student, but at least this thing I know.
Please, forgive me if this is not what you wanted to discuss, what you had in mind. Personally, I want to learn more about the hebrews, their expectations, their concepts of Messiah, how they viewed Jesus Christ etc. I wish to understand them better.
I think the thread is very challenging and interesting. But, what I do not understand is why are you so focused on the language, instead on their thinking (like the title of the thread says). Although i do not doubt one bit that the language expresses the deepness of one's understanding, mindset etc., I agree with the user JGIG that the differences between the hebrew mindset and the greek thinking lies in how they relate to Jesus Christ. I do not know very much about the hebrew culture and I am glad that you are very into this because there are a lot of interesting things that I learn from you.
So, notice that I put in bold the words mindset and thinking. It seems that I belittle the hebrews but I do not! It's just that one of the reasons why they rejected Christ was because of their mindset, right? I am not a bible student, but at least this thing I know.
Please, forgive me if this is not what you wanted to discuss, what you had in mind. Personally, I want to learn more about the hebrews, their expectations, their concepts of Messiah, how they viewed Jesus Christ etc. I wish to understand them better.
Is there anyone on CC who has done a study of the effect Alexander the Great had on the growth of the knowledge of God in the world? I hope these people who are so against learning anything about this don't frighten you off, they really are bullies and we are accountable to God, not them.
Another study that I would like to understand better is the effect of Hellenization (Greek thought) on Christianity. Colossians chapter two gives an overview of this.
Another study that I would like to understand better is the effect of Hellenization (Greek thought) on Christianity. Colossians chapter two gives an overview of this.
Thank you so much for adding thought to this thread! It is so true that it is the mindset and ways of thinking that had the most effect, I think.
It is true that the mindset of the Hebrews led them not to accept Christ, but I don't think that it was Hellenization that caused this. I found a website that listed every reason they had, using scripture, to say the man Christ was when He was here was not the Christ that scripture predicted. Their basic objection was based on scriptures that said Christ would be King and ruler, and they saw only Rome as taking over that function for them. When Christ was ruler of the kingdom of God, not the secular ruler, they felt it was scripture that said Christ wasn't the one. It wasn't Greek thought that led to that, I don't think, but following the letter of the law when scripture told them scripture always had more depth than that. Now I think about it, it could be the influence of Greek thought that brought them to this conclusion.
It is true that the mindset of the Hebrews led them not to accept Christ, but I don't think that it was Hellenization that caused this. I found a website that listed every reason they had, using scripture, to say the man Christ was when He was here was not the Christ that scripture predicted. Their basic objection was based on scriptures that said Christ would be King and ruler, and they saw only Rome as taking over that function for them. When Christ was ruler of the kingdom of God, not the secular ruler, they felt it was scripture that said Christ wasn't the one. It wasn't Greek thought that led to that, I don't think, but following the letter of the law when scripture told them scripture always had more depth than that. Now I think about it, it could be the influence of Greek thought that brought them to this conclusion.
Really? Prove it.
I can prove otherwise, from my other post on this very thread:
JGIG - Is it helpful to understand Hebrew culture to grasp the finer points of God's foreshadowing and weaving Christ throughout the Scriptures? Yes, but immersing one's self in Hebrew language and cultural studies is not necessary. Israel and her language and culture derived through covenants was a vehicle through which God worked - a means to an end, not the end itself, and certainly not the central theme of the Scriptures. Christ Jesus is the central theme of the Scriptures, woven throughout from beginning to end, in the Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts.
So you either didn't bother to actually read what I wrote, our you're intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote for your own agenda hoping no one will notice.
We notice.
RedTent, you got snookered several years ago and have been lured into a false belief system.
You've arrogantly categorized yourself as one 'serious about loving the Lord' BECAUSE you have come to study with an Hebraic mindset - setting yourself up as superior to those who disagree with you and even labeling them as rebellious or ignorant to bolster your elitism. The flip side of that, of course, is that those who don't agree with you are 'not serious about loving the Lord', which is bearing false witness against us.
Bearing false witness is still one of the commandments, is it not?
Yet you repeatedly violate that commandment on this forum.
RedTent's Gospel according to Bambi. Got it. And it wasn't Bambi who said it, it was Thumper. Just to keep our sources straight
.
So we're supposed to let RedTent say whatever she wants - plagiarize, bear false witness against her brothers and sisters, and post false teachings, but don't dare point out when she does it. That wouldn't be nice, to challenge the false teachings, lies, and assertions.
Really? Who? Name them and provide proof.
And what Scriptures are we against? The ones you post?
Oh - wait - you don't tend to post actual Scriptures, just pontificate about how everyone is against the Scriptures that you don't actually post.
As for the 'learned' stuff you post, what learned stuff? You make assertions left and right, not citing your sources so that we, as we are exhorted to do, may test everything. I have done much research into the ideas that you post, and happen to know where you get a lot of the ideas you post, have evaluated (tested) them, and found them to be lacking. And I'm happy to post links to resources for folks to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Again, you bear false witness. 'These people', 'like me', do not post 'against anything else of scripture'. Rightly dividing the Word is something we are exhorted to do. Not all of Scripture applies to all people for all time. We are not in the Old Covenant - God made sure that its obsolescence was secured within one generation of the Work of Christ so that it COULD NOT be relied upon as a covenantal system any longer.
Does the Law still exist and still have a purpose? Yes! To lead people to Christ so that they can enter into His New Covenant! That New Covenant does not merely consist of salvation, but of Righteousness and New Life - AND how to live that New Life - by the Spirit, not by the Law. It really is so clear.
Do we preach salvation? You bet! But it doesn't end there. We go to the New Covenant (the one we enter into by faith in Christ for forgiveness, righteousness, and New Life, which is salvation) for how to live our lives in Christ.
Yet the Ancient Hebrew Research Center is not where you pulled the content for your OP. Nor did you post a link to that site or to the site where you did take someone else's writing and make it appear as your own. So what you're really doing is posting what you've come to believe, without providing anyone with resources with which to do their own research so that they can reach their own conclusions. Then if someone disagrees with what YOU post, you attack them (with no proof such as a quote from them) as being 'against the Bible', as if your opinion is the Biblical standard! And you do all this while not posting Scripture! It really is an amazing thing to watch.
Your next paragraph is a perfect example:
UGH. No, RedTent. Not a different God or a different Bible. Again, you are bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters and setting up a strawman to knock down.
And then you pull the Bambi Card on us?!
Seriously.
-JGIG
I can prove otherwise, from my other post on this very thread:
JGIG - Is it helpful to understand Hebrew culture to grasp the finer points of God's foreshadowing and weaving Christ throughout the Scriptures? Yes, but immersing one's self in Hebrew language and cultural studies is not necessary. Israel and her language and culture derived through covenants was a vehicle through which God worked - a means to an end, not the end itself, and certainly not the central theme of the Scriptures. Christ Jesus is the central theme of the Scriptures, woven throughout from beginning to end, in the Hebrew and the Greek manuscripts.
So you either didn't bother to actually read what I wrote, our you're intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote for your own agenda hoping no one will notice.
We notice.
RedTent, you got snookered several years ago and have been lured into a false belief system.
You've arrogantly categorized yourself as one 'serious about loving the Lord' BECAUSE you have come to study with an Hebraic mindset - setting yourself up as superior to those who disagree with you and even labeling them as rebellious or ignorant to bolster your elitism. The flip side of that, of course, is that those who don't agree with you are 'not serious about loving the Lord', which is bearing false witness against us.
Bearing false witness is still one of the commandments, is it not?
Yet you repeatedly violate that commandment on this forum.
RedTent's Gospel according to Bambi. Got it. And it wasn't Bambi who said it, it was Thumper. Just to keep our sources straight
.So we're supposed to let RedTent say whatever she wants - plagiarize, bear false witness against her brothers and sisters, and post false teachings, but don't dare point out when she does it. That wouldn't be nice, to challenge the false teachings, lies, and assertions.
Really? Who? Name them and provide proof.
And what Scriptures are we against? The ones you post?
Oh - wait - you don't tend to post actual Scriptures, just pontificate about how everyone is against the Scriptures that you don't actually post.
As for the 'learned' stuff you post, what learned stuff? You make assertions left and right, not citing your sources so that we, as we are exhorted to do, may test everything. I have done much research into the ideas that you post, and happen to know where you get a lot of the ideas you post, have evaluated (tested) them, and found them to be lacking. And I'm happy to post links to resources for folks to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
Again, you bear false witness. 'These people', 'like me', do not post 'against anything else of scripture'. Rightly dividing the Word is something we are exhorted to do. Not all of Scripture applies to all people for all time. We are not in the Old Covenant - God made sure that its obsolescence was secured within one generation of the Work of Christ so that it COULD NOT be relied upon as a covenantal system any longer.
Does the Law still exist and still have a purpose? Yes! To lead people to Christ so that they can enter into His New Covenant! That New Covenant does not merely consist of salvation, but of Righteousness and New Life - AND how to live that New Life - by the Spirit, not by the Law. It really is so clear.
Do we preach salvation? You bet! But it doesn't end there. We go to the New Covenant (the one we enter into by faith in Christ for forgiveness, righteousness, and New Life, which is salvation) for how to live our lives in Christ.
Yet the Ancient Hebrew Research Center is not where you pulled the content for your OP. Nor did you post a link to that site or to the site where you did take someone else's writing and make it appear as your own. So what you're really doing is posting what you've come to believe, without providing anyone with resources with which to do their own research so that they can reach their own conclusions. Then if someone disagrees with what YOU post, you attack them (with no proof such as a quote from them) as being 'against the Bible', as if your opinion is the Biblical standard! And you do all this while not posting Scripture! It really is an amazing thing to watch.
Your next paragraph is a perfect example:
UGH. No, RedTent. Not a different God or a different Bible. Again, you are bearing false witness against your brothers and sisters and setting up a strawman to knock down.
And then you pull the Bambi Card on us?!
Seriously.
-JGIG
Do you really not know that it's not okay to take other people's work and make it appear as your own?
Ever hear of Jacob? He's in the Old Testament. You should look him up.
Um, don't look now, RedTent, but that is the standard YOU expect us to let YOU get away with.
And Crossnote does not do that - again, you bearing hyperbolic false witness.
You really should provide evidence for your wild accusations or offer a sincere apology.
-JGIG
Ever hear of Jacob? He's in the Old Testament. You should look him up.
Um, don't look now, RedTent, but that is the standard YOU expect us to let YOU get away with.
And Crossnote does not do that - again, you bearing hyperbolic false witness.
You really should provide evidence for your wild accusations or offer a sincere apology.
-JGIG
Redtent,
I do not believe that the greek thinking led people to accept Christ. I only said that what I know for sure is that the mindset of the hebrews led them to reject Christ.
I try to put myself in the place of a hebrew and watch Jesus Christ through his eyes. It is only like this that I can understand the astonishment that they must have had when they saw a young man who pointed towards himself everything that they held as holy, such as Sabbath, the Temple, the Torah, the Messiah etc. I wonder if I was capable to get out of the religious mindset or not. (maybe I, myself, am in a mindset...)
Saint Paul said that the rituals, the prophecies, the laws are only a shadow of what was to come: the Church of Jesus Christ.
So, just like the user JGIG said, I also believe that the hebrews, their thinking, their language, their rituals are only a mean to an end (Jesus Christ and His Church) and not the end itself.
Again, I am not a bible student and I hope that more people will post on this thread because I am really curious to find out more about the hebrew thinking versus the greek thinking.
Do you Redtent, believe that those who spoke and wrote in greek were tributary to the gnostic philosophy/thinking? (Is this why you suggested to us to read Colossians ch. 2?)
I do not believe that the greek thinking led people to accept Christ. I only said that what I know for sure is that the mindset of the hebrews led them to reject Christ.
I try to put myself in the place of a hebrew and watch Jesus Christ through his eyes. It is only like this that I can understand the astonishment that they must have had when they saw a young man who pointed towards himself everything that they held as holy, such as Sabbath, the Temple, the Torah, the Messiah etc. I wonder if I was capable to get out of the religious mindset or not. (maybe I, myself, am in a mindset...)
Saint Paul said that the rituals, the prophecies, the laws are only a shadow of what was to come: the Church of Jesus Christ.
So, just like the user JGIG said, I also believe that the hebrews, their thinking, their language, their rituals are only a mean to an end (Jesus Christ and His Church) and not the end itself.
Again, I am not a bible student and I hope that more people will post on this thread because I am really curious to find out more about the hebrew thinking versus the greek thinking.
Do you Redtent, believe that those who spoke and wrote in greek were tributary to the gnostic philosophy/thinking? (Is this why you suggested to us to read Colossians ch. 2?)
The entire idea of learning Hebrew culture and thought to better understand scripture has been so twisted so it is "false prophet" "I blame you aren't you personally TERRIBLE Redtent, that it is hard for me to talk about learning Hebrew thinking and the influence of the Greek. There is lots written on it for people interested in bible rather than the blame game.
I still cannot believe that the entire mindset of the culture of all before Alexander the Great was such an influence is a cause of not accepting Christ as the one scripture foretold. Again, I base that on a study I did of every scripture they state they based this rejection on, so this is on more precise thinking than just that they had Hebrew mind set, they rejected Christ, it must have a connection.
I know that the church today is sure that Paul spoke against all Hebrew thinking, that Paul renounced anything Hebrew. A dear friend of mine challenged me on that assessment of Paul, she and I spent months on this. Paul said he didn't, that he was a Torah observant Jew and went to two courts to prove it in those courts as Acts tells us. Christ Himself said that the legalistic obedience many of His day were doing was in no way obedience to Torah, and Paul repeats that. Paul often spoke against using rituals when we are given the Holy Spirit to lead us to law, but Paul never spoke against law. Paul spoke against using cutting of foreskin instead of real circumcision, but he never spoke again circumcision. Paul even spoke against the way the church judges others for observing the special days.
We have an event coming up similar to the first coming of Christ and we have many scriptures telling us about it. Most scholars today are reading them in the very same way the rabbis did back then---they say Christ will do this and this on this day, etc. It has nothing to do with Hebrew or Hellenistic thinking.
I still cannot believe that the entire mindset of the culture of all before Alexander the Great was such an influence is a cause of not accepting Christ as the one scripture foretold. Again, I base that on a study I did of every scripture they state they based this rejection on, so this is on more precise thinking than just that they had Hebrew mind set, they rejected Christ, it must have a connection.
I know that the church today is sure that Paul spoke against all Hebrew thinking, that Paul renounced anything Hebrew. A dear friend of mine challenged me on that assessment of Paul, she and I spent months on this. Paul said he didn't, that he was a Torah observant Jew and went to two courts to prove it in those courts as Acts tells us. Christ Himself said that the legalistic obedience many of His day were doing was in no way obedience to Torah, and Paul repeats that. Paul often spoke against using rituals when we are given the Holy Spirit to lead us to law, but Paul never spoke against law. Paul spoke against using cutting of foreskin instead of real circumcision, but he never spoke again circumcision. Paul even spoke against the way the church judges others for observing the special days.
We have an event coming up similar to the first coming of Christ and we have many scriptures telling us about it. Most scholars today are reading them in the very same way the rabbis did back then---they say Christ will do this and this on this day, etc. It has nothing to do with Hebrew or Hellenistic thinking.
Last edited:
Simona25,
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
You can read the rest here: Hebrew Roots Movement – The Issue of “Hellenization”
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Hebrew language tends to be concrete
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
We transistion now from language to culture . . .
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
May God grant you wisdom and discernment as you consider all of these things.
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
I think the issue was from the beginning bound to be found out,,,I have read from the o.p. to the end and am surprised that none of you caught the last paragraph quoted in the o.p. that states Paul/Saul was raised in Rome and the scriptures state he was not,,,but rather at the feet of "WHO?,,," AND ''WHERE?'',,,,, Gamaliel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,,,then if the original Hebrew was the key at all,,,,why did God himself present the church the message in Greek and not continue in Hebrew?,,,,,,,
Are you saying that God denied any Hebrew because he allowed s scripture to be written in Greek? Does this mean that you think we should turn our backs on ......what? We know Paul was a Jew with training by Gamaliel, a famous rabbi. We also know he went to school learning about Greek, etc. I thought some of his training was actually done there, but I had never studied that only that he was trained by Gamaliel and he knew other disciplines. You seem to be making a point about that having to do with denying any Hebrew thinking? Would you make this point clear?
Do you have a man that God spoke scripture through who had absolutely no connection to the Hebrew world?
I find it quite enlightening that the world is so opposed at anything of Hebrew!! and so enthralled with the Greek and Hellenistic influences. Alexander the Great was key to bringing this to the attention of the world, do you think this man is to be idolized, too?
Do you have a man that God spoke scripture through who had absolutely no connection to the Hebrew world?
I find it quite enlightening that the world is so opposed at anything of Hebrew!! and so enthralled with the Greek and Hellenistic influences. Alexander the Great was key to bringing this to the attention of the world, do you think this man is to be idolized, too?
Last edited:
Simona25,
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
You can read the rest here: Hebrew Roots Movement – The Issue of “Hellenization”
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
I've done a study that encompasses the concepts which RedTent brought up in the OP and the issues of Hellenization (Greek thought and culture). Here's a link, and I'll follow it with a few excerpts so you can get a feel for the article. There are also LOTS of links embedded in the article for you to explore to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
Excerpts:
Those who advocate the Hebrew Roots Movement erroneously equate Greek language with the Greek culture, even to the point of claiming that New Testament itself was Hellenized, rendering the text unfit for discerning doctrine without first sifting the concepts found there through the sieve of Hebrew language and Hebrew thought.
The standard assertion in the Hebrew Roots Movement regarding Greek influence on Scripture and the Church is two-fold:
1) That the New Testament was written about Hebrews, by Hebrews, and for Hebrews and
2) That the Church and the New Testament that she uses has been “Hellenized” or influenced heavily by “Greek thought”, detrimentally affecting the doctrines and practices of the Church.
I understand the points they’re trying to make, but find flaws in how far they take those points.
Let’s take an objective look at the above assertions espoused by the HRM – first regarding language, then regarding culture – and measure them against the realities of the New Testament Scriptures and New Testament Church as God has established them.
Regarding Language
Granted, most of the early converts to Christianity were Jewish. Yes, they came with a Hebraic mindset – to a degree. To say that they came with Hebrew culture and religion would be more accurate. Some did know Biblical Hebrew, but the majority spoke Aramaic, similar to but different from Hebrew (see “Languages Used in Ancient Palestine” below). It is debatable whether or not Aramaic was their primary language or rather that it was one of two or more languages common to the era, culture and geography in which they lived. Those in the HRM would have you believe that the Hebrew religion, culture and language at the time of Jesus’ ministry was pure and unadulterated by the languages and cultures in which it found itself. An objective inspection of history does not, however, prove that opinion to be true.
One thing that the HRM fails to do is to delineate the difference between language and culture. The common Greek language in use during the time of Christ crossed many cultural boundaries. That God intended for the New Testament to be written in Greek makes sense. It was the dominant language of the world at the time, used in trade, politics, and culture. Not only that, the Koine Greek language of the New Testament has broad descriptive ability and vocabulary with which to communicate the spiritual truths that God intended to impart to mankind under the New Covenant. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Read on . . .A brief description of Koine Greek from Wikipedia:
Koine Greek (Greek: Κοινὴ Ἑλληνική IPA: [kɔɪnɛ̝^], Mod.Gk. IPA: [kʲiˈni e̞liniˈkʲi], “common Greek”, or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, Mod.Gk. [i kʲiˈni ðiˈale̞kto̞s], “the common dialect”) is the popular form of Greek which emerged in post-Classical antiquity (c.300 BC – AD 300). Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic, Common, or New Testament Greek. Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and ancient Near East throughout the Roman period. It was also the original language of the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
From the School of Arts & Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania regarding how Koine Greek differs from Classical Greek:
Robertson characterizes Koinê Greek as a later development of Classical Greek, that is, the dialect spoken in Attica (the region around Athens) during the classical period.
“To all intents and purposes the vernacular Koinh is the later vernacular Attic with normal development under historical environment created by Alexander’s conquests. On this base then were deposited varied influences from the other dialects, but not enough to change the essential Attic character of the language.” (Robertson 71)
If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.
. . . . .
The reality that common Greek “furnished an ideal vehicle for the proclamation of God’s message to man, transcending Semitic barriers and reaching out to all the Gentile races”, poses quite a dilema for the Hebrew Roots Movement. Where does Hebraic superiority in communicating spiritual things land if Semitic barriers were transcended – that God determined that those barriers needed to be transcended – with the coming of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all mankind?
Jesus sought consistently throughout His ministry to transition religious Jews from their Hebraic paradigm in preparation for the New Covenant. More on that below. And it should be made clear that it wasn’t from a Hebraic paradigm to a Greek paradigm that he was shifting focus to. Jesus was shifting the focus from the Law-based system of the Old Covenant – while retaining its foundational value – to the faith-based transformative power of the Gospel (the New Covenant) to all men! The Greek language used to communicate the New Covenant Scriptures was merely a tool used by God.
Nowhere in Scripture does God require that to know and please Him we have to come with the Hebrew language or a Hebrew perspective. Psalm 51 comes to mind, where David, even under the Old Covenant, with the Hebrew language and the Hebrew perspective, understood that God’s grace and mercy were the source for his redemption and cleansing from sin – not the Law. Psalm 51:17 says, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” And David’s faith, along with the faith of many others, not his adherance to the Law (which is a good thing, because David didn’t do so well with adhering to the Law), was what he was commended for according to Hebrews 11. Those whose names are listed in Hebrews 11, as the King James Version puts it, became heirs of righteousness through . . . the Law? The language or mindset that they had? No! They became heirs of righteousness through faith!
And we, as believers under the New Covenant, understand from the New Testament that the Gospel – the completed work of Christ at the Cross – is grace and mercy and the very Spirit of God indwelling us to bring about not just the covering of sin, as the Old Covenant provided for, but the cleansing of sin and for our sanctification. The letter of Paul to the Romans in particular discusses the transformative power of the Gospel and how it changes mankind’s relationship to sin, to the Law, and ultimately to God. Indeed, most of the New Testament communicates the realities of the Gospel to mankind.
This simple illustration frames the tendencies of the languages used in the Bible well:
Hebrew language tends to be concrete
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
——> Law makes sense <——
Greek language tends to be abstract/conceptual
——> Grace makes sense <——
Remember . . .
The common Greek language that God chose to communicate the concepts and truths of the New Covenant was merely a tool. Used because it was the best way to communicate the Gospel to the world at the time, both in its linguistic ability and in its scope. That the Koine Greek plays a part in the plan of God need not be targeted unless another agenda is afoot.
We transistion now from language to culture . . .
Regarding Culture
. . . . .
One other point: The Hebrew Roots Movement – across the board – espouses this in regard to their insistence that we must look at all Scripture with a Hebraic mindset: “The Scripture is a different culture than ours, it is like going to a different country where the people look different and talk different. Different is not bad, it is just not what we are used to”.
While that is true on one level, the primary purpose of the Scriptures is to deal with the spiritual condition of mankind’s heart in relation to God. The truths communicated throughout the whole of Scripture transcend culture and language. While we can benefit from knowing about linguistic nuances and about cultural differences and how they influenced certain people in particular times and circumstances in their response to or rejection of God, the spiritual truths themselves delve into the heart issues everyone shares, our common human-ness, no matter our cultural or linguistic background. Only if you are seeking to be placed under (or place others under) the practices of the Old Covenant do the issues of learning to think and speak “like a Hebrew” come into play.
. . . .
This is where the HRM begins to assert Hebraic primacy, in both language and culture indivisibly, as well as assert Greek inferiority, linking the Greek language and culture indivisibly, in communicating the things of God.
What strikes me about their premise is not that it elevates one “mindset” above another, but that it limits God in its assumption that the only way Heis able to communicate His purposes, His righteousness, and His heart to mankind effectively is through a particular mindset and language! What becomes evident as one learns more about the Hebrew Roots Movement is that it is not capable of supporting the truth that the Gospel transcends linguistic and cultural barriers.
. . . .
Conclusions
While on Earth, did Jesus think like a Hebrew? Like a Greek?
I would submit to you that He did neither.
Jesus thought like God, because He IS God.
God’s plan for mankind predates anything Hebrew or Greek, linguistically or culturally. God’s redemptive plan, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, restores us to relationship with Him, with faith rooted in Jesus Christ, not in a culture or in a particular language or “mindset”!
The Hebrew culture and journey throughout history bears testimony to God’s faithfulness, bears witness to God’s plan, the sketch of what was to come for the redemption of all tribes, tongues and nations through the completed Masterpiece, the Gospel of Jesus Christ! To tie the world’s tribes, tongues, and nations to the Hebrew culture and language to fully understand the things of God is not a reasonable leap. Furthermore, that leap is never required by God!
One has to consider, based on the same observations that Neil from Pass the Toast and commentator G.L. Archer made, that God indeed used a time in history where a language different from Hebrew, that HE ALLOWED to be in place, would be used to communicate His Gospel to the majority of the world as it existed at the time. Yes, Jesus came first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles. That truth is not negated by the primary language or the cultural conditions of the era in which He came. And now God has allowed for His Word to be translated into many tongues in order to reach all tribes and nations. Indeed, He mandated it with the command from Jesus to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
May God grant you wisdom and discernment as you consider all of these things.
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
Grace and PEACE?
Could it be that God didn't decide on Greek rather than Hebrew in order to give Greek a higher standing in our eyes, but to communicate with the most people? If you will note in the book of Daniel it is written in two different languages, depending or who it was directed to and who was speaking and had nothing to do with one language being superior to another.
my point is that if we think it through(see paragraph 4 of o.p),,so God we think wrote Revelations,to a Greek speaking set of churches in Hebrew(not Greek like they spoke),and their lives depended on them understanding what it said?,,,Ephesians,,do I write it in Hebrew that they barely understand,,or Greek that they do?,,,,the idea is to save them,,not pull a trick on them and deliver the gospel to them in a language they barely understood.
Right. So the language chosen has to do with the best way to communicate to people, not on exalting one language over another.
At the same time, as I study ancient Hebrew language and the spiritual message of the Old Testament, I don't think that the Greek language could have done it as well, nor that any translation of those particular scriptures into one of our known languages has done as good a job as what little, even, that I have learned of the meaning of the Hebrew words. Many times it takes many words in our language to explain one Hebrew word like "shalom" or "owr".
At the same time, as I study ancient Hebrew language and the spiritual message of the Old Testament, I don't think that the Greek language could have done it as well, nor that any translation of those particular scriptures into one of our known languages has done as good a job as what little, even, that I have learned of the meaning of the Hebrew words. Many times it takes many words in our language to explain one Hebrew word like "shalom" or "owr".