LORD
THE RICHES WE LEARN FROM THE HEBREW NAME HE CALLS HIMSELF
Though not alphabetically first, we must of course begin with the Name of the LORD, the Name the One True God Who Lives uses and reveals of Himself. This is first and foremost! Everything – everything – will flow from how we perceive and understand the LORD. Is it as He Himself expresses – and in the only language He does so? Or, do we base our understanding, thinking, will and action on the basis of what others post-Biblically postulate about Him – from the non-Biblical languages?
It has been astutely observed regarding the Bible: that the Western World has the following difficulty with the Bible “A Western World with an Eastern book”.
What has this to do with the Name of the LORD? In Mt. 16:14-20 vss. 15-16 Yeshua asks his Taught Ones, who the crowds of fellow Galilean Jews they had just been with, think he is. The Taught Ones reply, some of their fellow Galilean Jews think Yeshua is Yochanon HaMatpil (Yochanon the Immerser; Gentile translation “John the Baptist”). Others say that Yeshua is Eliyahu (“God of Me, Yah is He”, English “Elijah. Yah is a shortened form of the Hebrew Name LORD. In Hebrew it is obvious; English-like Greek – has no way to distinguish it in translation).
The Taught Ones also reply that some of their fellow Jews of Galilee think Yeshua is Yirmayahu (“One Who casts, Ya is He”) (“Jeremiah”). Others, that Yeshua is one of the Prophets.
Yeshua then asks the Taught Ones “Who do you – plural – say I am?” Mt. 16:15. In short for here; Matthew’s Hebraic KG shows Shimon bar Yonah – Simon son of Jonah (“dove”) – Peter’s Aramaic name used by Yeshua Mt. 16:16 – that Peter replied as a Jew and a Hebrew would. Peter had grasped who Yeshua truly was.
Gentile translations have to “Gentilize” Peter’s response; “you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. We have an extensive, we hope, teaching on Yeshua’s extremely critical question “who do you – plural – say I am?”. In short for here, as follows below on this extremely “key” question.
Peter’s actual answer could not have been the “C” name; that is a form of Latin. Was Peter an Italian fisherman on the Mediterranean? Obviously not! Peter was a Jew of northern Israel (Galilee) who had never been outside Galilee, except presumably to go to Jerusalem!
Peter thus would have – and did according to Matthew – answer Yeshua as follows. That Yeshua was the Mashiach, son of the God Who Lives.
We opened up we hope in our teaching on this that though translated “Living Matthew uses a participle; “Lives”. The “key” difference? In short; Peter sees God in terms of “real, concrete, present tense, continuous process”, the meaning-idea of the form Peter used.
“Living” (an infinitive) indicates more of an idea of action (verb) than idea-concept noun). Peter does not see God in terms of “idea-concept”. That is more Greek-Latin-English and Western! In short; Peter Hebraically sees God Hebraically – not Western – as “Be” “Exist” “Cause to exist”.
Modern Westerners especially do not generally recognize how much influence Greek-thinking has on Western thought! In short for here, we would (strongly!) posit that this is due to Early Gentile leadership in the centuries immediately after Yeshua, deliberately rejecting Jerusalem for Athens, as the source of Truth.
As we point out in some detail ahead and have done so elsewhere in our teaching, the LORD only speaks to Man in Hebrew! As we have pointed out the Father speaks – at most – 3 times in the entire Renewed Covenant!
Does He speak to Greeks, or Romans, or Persians, or Englishmen, or Germans then? Obviously not! (Hitler thought “JC” was an Aryan. One might have thought Hitler would have disavowed Yeshua completely – Yeshua being a Jew. Instead, Hitler “recast” Yeshua as an Aryan. Hitler it must be remembered, merely continued the process of de-Hebraicizing de-Judaizing Yeshua that had begun early in the second century.
(Hitler’s “Final Solution” was his response to Martin Luther’s question at the end of Luther’s 1543 tome “On The Jews And Their Lies”). Luther laid out a 7 step “plan” for dealing with as Luther called them “this damnable race, the Jews”. Luther’s Final Question as follows. We quote an English translation:
“To sum up, dear princes and nobles, who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden – the Jews”.
In short, Hitler followed exactly and step by step the 7 steps that Luther laid out for dealing with “this insufferable devilish burden”. The Final Solution – exterminate the Jew – was Hitler’s response to “…then find a better one so that you and we may all be free..”.
Luther also said, “Know O Christian you have no greater enemy than the Jew”. Yet ironically Luther also said, “those who study the Bible in Hebrew drink from the Source, those in Greek from the brook, those in Latin, further downstream”.
In short also; Luther began as a monk in an order of Augustine; also very much an anti-Semite. Augustine among other things said, “the Jews exist to carry our books in their confusion.”
Augustine merely continued the anti-Semitic de-Hebraicized de-Judaized approach to God and the Bible that began in the 2nd century.
Jerome, translator of the Bible into Latin known to Catholics especially as the Vulgate, wrote the following to Augustine. Jerome – who ironically learned his Hebrew – he had to – from Jews, wrote Augustine that “the prayers of the Jews are like the cry of an inarticulate animal”.
Think other “Re-Formers” are better? The other major “Re-Former”, the author of “The Institutes Of The Christian Religion”, is at best – at best – theologically neutral towards Israel.
What does the above have to do with the Name of the LORD?
Everything – and nothing. Nothing in the sense that post-Biblical Gentile Leadership’s post-Biblical interpolations onto the Bible, do not affect what the Bible in Hebrew says.
The Text is the Text. It cannot be re-written; only “re-interpreted”.
However, when the LORD is understood, seen, and interpreted from the non-Hebrew meaning and perspective of Greek-Latin-English, then in a sense everything.
Everything in the sense that a way expressing what the LORD says and how those He speaks with personally, is now anachronistically revised.
It is again, to use the analogy we have used elsewhere, it is like a group of Orthodox Jewish rabbis in Jerusalem re-casting Shakespeare and his writings as though they were Israeli born Jews speaking the European Jewish language Yiddish! (A mixture of German and Hebrew).
To do that would be to completely “re-cast” Shakespeare and his characters!
If the LORD had intended to be known from Greek-Latin-English why not speak to Man in one of those languages?
Why not give Reason and Logic to Aristotle at the Parthenon or Acropolis in Athens? Why form, in the first place, the Jewish People?
What has any of this to do with the Name of the LORD? Does it have any bearing on how one seeks the LORD? On how one understands or what they understand about God? Yes! How?
The great difficulty the World and the West specifically has with understanding God and the Bible is as follows.
If one brings a Western made appliance to Jerusalem and plugs it into an electrical outlet it will not work. Best case, nothing happens. Worst case, God forbid, a fire would start. Why?
Jerusalem is wired differently than the West. (In this instance specifically North America. We once met someone in Jerusalem whose business was importing American made appliances rewired to work in Israel).
In short; if you are a Westerner, your understanding and thinking is most likely Western. It is infused with Greek’s (specifically Aristotle’s) emphasis-approach on reason-logic and the intellect. The mind is largely the end all and be all. Things have to “make sense”. They have to be “understandable” One has to be able to “comprehend” something in order to “believe” in it.
Things need to be laid out “systematically”; or at least “sequentially”. It all needs to “fit together” nicely and neatly. There needs to be a “definition”.
In short; everything must be “organized”. There must be a “structure” that things and ideas fit “neatly” into.
In a sentence; the problem the West has with God is that He does not “fit” with the West’s approach to Him. The LORD does not operate as to how they think He “should”. Things don’t make “sense” according to the Western idea of “sense”.
The LORD cannot be “quantified” according to Western standards of quantification.
Or, things seem to be “random”; “I” see no reason or logic. Western Man has at least to some extent made his “Intellect” his “god”. The “mind” is the end all and be all.
As Rene Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am”. No! I “am” because the LORD “Be” “Exist” “Cause to Exist”, actually caused me to exist.
This though presents at times a very major problem: who is “in charge”? One’s ego tells them “it is/must be” “me”. I cannot/will not submit to someone or something else unless “I” choose to do so; it is of great benefit, advantageous and benefits “me”.
In short, the “problem”? The LORD did not choose to operate nor communicated according to Western Man. The LORD does not “conform” to Western Man. He does not need to! Cf. the LORD speaking to Job in Job 38-39.
In short the problem is: the LORD chooses to reveal Himself differently than Western Man “expects”. That is the bad news so to speak for Western Man. If one expects the LORD to “fit” into their “wishes” one can almost (but not quite!) be guaranteed – it won’t “work”.
What loving father “conforms” to “fit” what his child “thinks” he should be? As children if we were blessed – and we say this very sensitively – to have an earthly father, did we “understand” everything he did?
When we did not get what we wanted and said “we don’t think it’s fair” or we did not “comprehend”, did that mean he wasn’t our father?
Did we think “my father doesn’t exist” or “I’m not sure” because what he’s allowing/not allowing me to do “doesn’t make sense”?
Of course not! How much more so then, with our Heavenly Father – the LORD!
In short; the LORD reveals Himself Hebraically to a World, again, in the West, that is “wired” Greek-Latin-English.
This is the where and the why of the disconnect, if there is one, with the LORD.
We had heard that there are electrical converters one could use in order to use a U.S. wired product in Israel. We were told though “in theory they work; in reality you cannot use a converter for anything more than a radio or electric razor”.
The Word of the LORD is not “wired” Western. Do the Greek philosophers claim the LORD spoke to them on top of the Acropolis? Do Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates claim the LORD gave them tablets “written by the finger of God” as was given to Moshe (Ex. 31:18, cf. Ex 34:1-7 et al?
Did the Stoics or Epicureans have a collective redemption experience with the LORD, as did the Israelites? Cf. Ex. 14, etc.; cf. Ex 6:2-8 especially!
Do the great Roman historians or writers (Tacitus, Cicero, etc.) claim they were called to the top of one of the seven hills of Rome? Yet uniquely and exclusively – exclusively – we see Moshe, Aaron and his sons and 70 elders (in Hebrew literally “graybeards”) called to the top of Mt. Sinai. There they “see” the LORD Ex. 24:9-11 v. 9. Cf. v. 1 also. (We put “see” in quotes because later the LORD said to Moshe in Hebrew as follows. “In fact (you) cannot completely see directly the essence and substance and everything about in an encompassing way (of) My face; for (Divine Providence) in fact no one of Mankind can, and live” Ex. 33:20).
The contexts of both Ex. 24 and 33 must be noted. In short Ex. 24 is about a completely, totally, and unique experience in the whole of human history. The revelation of the LORD to one people in one place at one time. This revelation included not only seeing what could be “seen” of the LORD. It included the fire and cloud and sound that surrounded the LORD on top of Mt. Sinai, with the giving of His Word.
In Hebrew, this is the Torah; the LORD’s “teaching, direction, revelation, law, guidance; absorb seed in order to promote growth”. Cf. Ex. 24:12.
Anthropologists point out that at least several cultures have a Flood story. However, no people, no culture, no civilization and no religion, claim or have anything like the Sinai experience! In Ex. 24:3 and 7 in short we find the Israelites, with in Hebrew one
“voice, absolute compound oneness, absolute one” accepting what the LORD has said “We will do and we will hear”.
It is estimated that there were 600,000 Israelites there at the time. Yet, the Torah says they said with “one voice” as rendered above, “we will do and in connectedness, we will hear: take in, give weight to, agree with the idea of acting upon what was heard”.
Here is a “key”. Notice – did the Israelites say to Moshe “we have examined the logic of this and reason tells us – after an intellectual analysis by our minds – this we understand. It makes sense. Therefore, we agree to accept it and we believe in it on the basis of discernible facts”? No!
In short earlier in Ex. 20 – the great chapter about “Ten (of) The Words” – which the World calls “The Ten Commandments”, the Torah’s Hebrew tell us that the Israelites “saw sound” Ex. 20:14.
The Jewish People – not one individual as with other religions – saw sound.
However this is mentioned after they heard the “Ten of the Words” from God Ex. 20:1-13.
The Hebrew of Ex. 20:14 says “and – in connection-connectedness (to what immediately preceded i.e. Ten of the Words) the positive bearer of existence-actuality the People collectively saw (“saw” is plural), (the) essence and substance and everything about the voices” (i.e., thunder).
Ex. 20:14 goes on to say that they saw “(the) essence and substance, in an encompassing way (of) the positive bearer of existence-actuality the flames”.
The Hebrew of Ex. 20:14 continues in truly remarkable and unique manner with “(the) voice (literally) (of) the shofar (ram’s horn).”
The Presence of the LORD who could be heard, closely enough to hear Him speak, suspended the “laws of nature”. They went beyond their ordinary limits.
Sound was seen in the process of the Israelites hearing the greatest instruction, insight, revelation, and godly ethical and moral behavior, ever given.
Skeptics will immediately try to dismiss this as an “ancient myth-fable-story”. If so, why have no other people made such a claim – or anything even close?
More importantly: if the Jewish People thought this was “myth”, how then do we account for the millions of Jews who have died – often brutally and horribly – to cling to a “myth”? Where is the “reason and logic” to that?
It should be noted quickly, that Moshe is no lone “Prophet”. Moshe claims no “special revelation” or “visitation”.
As we have opened up – but only in an infinitely small way – the Name of the LORD is a verb; “Be” “Exist” “Cause to Exist”.
This is “key” because the LORD revealed Himself to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and later to their descendants, the Israelites.
The LORD was not “found” by Moshe “thinking” and realizing – “God must Exist”.
The LORD revealed revelation about Himself by action – by acting, by doing. By speaking – directly. By things that were seen and experienced – by a whole People.
“Be” “Exist “Cause to Exist”, a verb, was known by His active activity; not a “definition” He gave. Nor, is it Man’s intellect deciding Who the LORD is!
His Name revealed who “He”. (Hebrew has no word “is”).
Lest we forget, Moshe makes no claim to being called up to or finding himself in the Heavens. The LORD descended down, and in doing so demonstrated that the covenants cut with the Jewish People’s Patriarchs, the Personal LORD keeps!
Again, the LORD revealed Himself not only by suspending the laws of nature, but by also speaking words of the greatest profundity – yet comprehensible.
Does one need a PhD to understand “in fact (in Hebrew) in the future do not murder” … “do not steal”..?
Is there a revelatory teaching of Man superior to the Ten of the Words? Who cannot understand them? The question is, do we accept the Author and we will do so?
The LORD “cause to exist” a People to take this forward.
The LORD of the Torah works through – not apart – from Man.
Lest we forget, in short the wisest of all men – King Solomon – realized he – who was given wisdom by the LORD (1 Chron. 1:7-12) could not comprehend what the LORD does or why. (Ecclesiastes but known in Hebrew as “Preacher”). In short, in Ecclesiastes Solomon realizes that even with the great wisdom the LORD gave him, he could not fully comprehend everything the LORD does. In the end he says, “(the) end (of the) thing (in) when the totality has been taken in the essence and substance and everything about in an encompassing way the positive bearer of existence actuality the God, fear, and in connectedness the essence and substance and everything about in an encompassing way fulfilling of which leads to fullness of life (English, His “commandments”) safeguard, protect; distance from danger (English “observe”) for, as a model this (is) the totality of Man” Eccl. 12:13.
Which is the best way – and “key” then – to try to know what the LORD says about Himself and the Name He uses? Is it in ways and languages He would consider, in Hebrew “foreignness” cf. Dt. 17:14-16, v. 15? Or, is it from the Bible; if so then we must look to and at the Hebrew the LORD Himself uses!
At the very end of the Gospel, Yochanon 21:25, Yochanon writes a totally Hebraic statement in closing his Gospel. Does Yochanon express a “definition” of Yeshua? Do we find a theological abstraction or concept about Yeshua? Is there a “position” we are to take about Yeshua?
No. Yochanon writes in his KG rendering “epoinsev O Insous”; what the Yeshua had done. Not, “will do in the future” – and if it were written down, the whole universe (tov kosmov, English “very specifically the Cosmos”) could not contain the written books!
In short for here Yochanon’s reference to Yeshua’s action, and what he had done and the references specifically to the Universe and written books, is totally Hebraic.
In short as we have repeatedly repeated: Hebrew in part is concrete and act-action rooted; not concept-idea and passive-position as Greek is.
Though unfortunately virtually unknown and not taught to followers of Yeshua, the KG concordance lists 569 uses of the KG word “poio” “do, make”. (As we mention, elsewhere, technically 583 uses). 351 of these uses – about 62% – are found in the Gospel. We mentioned above that the Gospel ends in Yochanon 21:25 with what Yeshua “epoinsev” “had done”.
What does this have to do with the Name of the LORD? As more than one rabbi has correctly expressed the Name LORD the Personal Name of the Father, in Hebrew, is a verb. It thus refers to action, activity, “activeness”.
The Name is not a noun. The Name is not a noun; indicating an object or thing or something not active. Are we merely speaking in terms of grammar? Not at all! To far far beyond vastly oversimplifying things; the Personal Name of the LORD, the Name He calls Himself – and would be known by – cf. Ex. 3:13-16 v.15 means “Be, Exist, Cause To Exist”.
As LORD willing and with His help we will explain and open up much further ahead, the Name is very organically and uniquely in Hebrew, connected to the Name in Ex. 3:14.
The Name in Ex. 3:14 is translated basically as “I Am that I Am”. We have rendered the deeper Hebrew meaning “I Individually Be that positively going forward and summing everything up that I Individually Be”. (In Hebrew “that” is no mere preposition. It more deeply means “positively going forward and summing everything up”. It is directly organically related to the Hebrew word “fortunate”. This is the Hebrew that actually opens Ps. 1:1.)
The letters of the Hebrew Name LORD give us, as the rabbis astutely and correctly point out, what is called in Hebrew a “hint” of “was, be, will be”. We rendered “be” rather than “is” because Hebrew has no word “is”.
In short for here part of “was, be, will be” is seen in at least the following “key” instances. In Ex. 15:18 we find in Hebrew “(the) LORD will reign to a time (that is) hidden – and – in connectedness – also beyond”. (The Hebrew I rendered “also beyond” really cannot be translated).
The context of Ex. 15 known as “The Song At The Sea” was the Song sung immediately following the collective saving redemption salvation-victory of the Israelites, through the Reed Sea. That is, after they pass between the walls of the Sea and were saved collectively by the LORD from Pharaoh and his charioteers.
Ex. 15:3 is part of the opening of the song known in Hebrew as a song in which the pleasure of feeling connected and drawn to the LORD is expressed. Ex. 15:3 ends with “..(the) LORD (Be) His Name”.
Yeshua asked his Taught Ones in Mt. 16:14-20 “Who do you – plural – say I am”? Everything – everything – will flow from how we see God.
Personal, through a personal relationship with His Son Yeshua? Or, a “Higher Power”? Transcendent and Imminent, “beyond what we can comprehend and far, yet also close? Or, merely “distant”?
Do we see God as Voltaire did; who said God wound the world up like a clock and watched it run? Or, like David in the “Shine Forth” “Songs of Praise” (“Psalms”) who in the beloved 23rd Psalm said in Hebrew “(the) LORD (is) Shepherd of me”.
Does the LORD reveal Himself and make Himself known according to the meaning of know in Hebrew by “experience, intimacy and personal relationship (cf. what Yeshua says in Mt. 7:21-24, especially v. 23!)?
Or, is God “known” by post-Biblical Gentile leadership’s reliance on its “intellect”? Its’ Aristotle based reason and logic, and its “Latin” – a language the Father, Yeshua, and the Ruach Hakodesh never speak to anyone by in the Bible?
If Yeshua used KG at all it was very rare at most; and, only to the occasional Gentile like the centurion in Lk. 7. In any case – KG – at best – is a very distant third language to Hebrew and its close sister language Aramaic for Yeshua. This is so even if Yeshua knew KG! KG is at best a distant third language for Yeshua.
Many fine scholars make the mistake of saying “JC said such and such in Greek”.
Yeshua’s transliterated words are in Aramaic – none are in KG. The Gospel cites no non-Jewish or Greek or Latin works – period.
Lastly but by no means least, in Yeshua’s most horrifying horrific moment, his time on the Cross (Mt. 27:46), Yeshua shrieks out from Ps. 22:2.
Matthew transliterates it in Hebrew; Mark, in Aramaic.
Also, lest we forget, would a Jewish Messiah born to Jewish parents through the Jewish People, consistently called a son of David, and being from Israel, north (Galilee), not the Diaspora, have prayed in KG, or Latin or “English”? Or, must it not have been in Hebrew?
The whole question of “what was Yeshua’s language” is settled in a sentence. In Acts 26:14-15 Paul recounts Yeshua called to him in Hebrew.
Yeshua called to Paul on the Damascus Road (Acts 9) from Heaven. Thus, Yeshua – in Heaven – calls to Paul “b’ivrit” in Hebrew.
Paul certainly has at least a solid middle level of KG. Meaning, Hebrew was not the only language Paul knew. If Hebrew had – God forbid – somehow become “now irrelevant” as Western Tradition tragically largely sees it, Yeshua could have called to Paul en ellene “in Greek”.
Yet, Yeshua does not… Thus, does not our Mashiach pray and speak to his Father – in Hebrew?
In short; we begin by, and more deeply understand what we can about God and are more illuminated about Him, through the only Names that do so. Those Names are revealed by the LORD Himself in Hebrew or by others in the Hebrew Bible that are Hebrews who speak Hebrew.
The lone exception, the only non-Hebrew who gives a name to God is Sarah’s maidservant Hagar.
To think that Moshe, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon, the Prophets, Elijah, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah et. al. conceived of or spoke of the LORD in Olde or contemporary English, is as ludicrous as thinking William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, King Lear, and Romeo and Juliet spoke Yiddish! (Yiddish is a mixture of Hebrew and German spoken years ago by many European Jews).
To think that Yeshua gave the “Teaching On The Hill” Mt. 5-7 using words like “doctrine” and “testament” (from the Latin “testamentum”) is as ludicrous as thinking Shakespeare used Yiddish words like “chutzpah” (“nerve”) or “oy vay” (“oh woe”) in writing Hamlet!
What is “key” for one to bear in mind is that the opening up of the Names used by and of God in the Hebrew Bible, open up and deepen your understanding of Him; what He says, what He means, what He intends.
Even the KG terms of the RCS, “Theos” for God, and “kurios” used for both LORD and Lord, actually tell us little more than a way to refer to God.
Have you ever been taught what they mean? Could a 1,000 pages be written about them – and that would only scratch the surface?
1,000 pages on the Personal Name of the LORD in Hebrew would not be adequate!
As we have very unfortunately been required to repeatedly repeat in our teaching, post-Biblical Western Tradition deliberately – deliberately – rejected Jerusalem for Athens as the source of truth.
Acts 17:16-32 finds Paul, as we have opened up elsewhere we hope, in Athens “distressed of himself…wholly full of idols, the city” in Luke’s KG.
Paul in Acts 17:23 tells the Athenians he saw a statue to an “Agnosto Theo” “(an) Unknown God”.
“Agnosto” literally means “without knowledge”. It is basically from the Greek prefix “a” used for “without” like “amoral” “without morals”, and “gnosis”, KG for “know”.
An “agnostic” is one who says “I don’t know” about God. An “atheist” is one who tragically does not have belief in God. It is from again “without” and a form of “Theos” “God”. An atheist is one who does not believe in God; thus they are without God.
Here is the bottom line question. Does your Bible show God gives “Reason and Logic” to Aristotle at the Acropolis in Athens; or the Tablets to Moshe at Mt. Sinai?
Neither Aristotle nor Plato ever could have possibly written what King David does under the inspiration of the Ruach Hakodesh; “(the) LORD (is) Shepherd of me” Ps. 23:1.
Why could neither Aristotle or Plato – both hugely influential for most of post-Biblical Western Tradition – have written “(the) LORD (is) Shepherd of me”?
The ancient Greeks had no concept of a Personal God with whom they could have a personal relationship!
The idea of a personal God was totally unknown by them.
If you have a personal relationship with the Father through and with His Son Yeshua Hamashiach, it is because it is rooted in the language of the Father – Hebrew. It is not – not – not – on the basis of the Greek of Athens or the Latin of Rome. Yet, Athens and Greek later replaced by Rome and Latin, is where early Gentile Leadership looked to learn of the God of Israel and the Hebrew Bible. The “Re-Formers” in short, very largely followed their Romanism predecessors.
Here is a fundamental and foundational question that sums everything up. Does a “taught one” of Aristotle, Plato or Socrates go to Jerusalem to explain about God to Jews in Jerusalem? Or, does Paul the Jew, Hebrew and Pharisee (chronologically Gal. 2:15, 2 Cor. 11:22, Phpn 3:5. Cf. Acts 21:39, 22:1-3, 23:6 et. al.) go to Athens to speak to the Athenians about God?
As a quick but very ”key” side-note; Luke’s KG rendering in Acts 21:39 is Paul said “..ego anthropos men (“man”) eimi Ioudaios” “I (a) men therefore am (a) Jew”.
Luke uses “men” “therefore” to reinforce the point. It should very much be noticed that Luke uses “eimi” “am” (a) Jew”; not was” a Jew. “Eimi” indicates the present tense.
In the exact same way in Acts 23:6 we find Paul telling Jewish officials – in Luke’s KG rendering of what was no doubt a Hebrew original (cf. Acts 22:1-2) – “I (a) Pharisee am”.
The KG “ego Pharisaios eimi” by the order of words emphasizes “Pharisee”. Again we must note the present tense “eimi” “am”.
Nowhere – nowhere – nowhere – does Paul call himself the “ex-Jew ex-Pharisee, Christian who converted to Christianity, the first Calvinist”, that the “Re-Formers” and later – and contemporary – Western Tradition Scholars and writers speak of.
That would be like a group of Orthodox Jewish rabbis who dislike Englishmen and thus English, who anachronistically rewrite Shakespeare’s Juliet into saying “Oy, Romeo, what a meshugah (“crazy”) situation we’re in”. (In Yiddish, a “meshuganah”is commonly used to refer to someone as a crazy off-the-wall type of person).
Here is the “key” in summing things up. Paul the Jew, Hebrew, and Pharisee is called by another Jew, and Hebrew – and one who drew much from the Pharisees in the way he debated with his fellow Jews – Yeshua. Paul goes from Jerusalem to Athens. Paul never studied in Athens; only Jerusalem cf. Acts 22:1-3.
Is an Athenian ever sent by “JC” to go to Jerusalem and explain to the inhabitants of Jerusalem who God is? Who “JC” is and what he represents for them?
A quick but very necessary side-note. Some will protest “but in Revelation both the Father (Rev. 1:8) and Yeshua (Rev. 22:13) say “I Am the Alpha and Omega”; isn’t that Greek? Didn’t they then speak Greek? (Cf. Also Rev. 21:6; seems to be God speaking).
In short for here and to sum up:
- Revelation is given by the Father – see Rev. 1:1. That it is Revelation singular rather than “Revelations” as it is sometimes mistakenly called, is indicative of Hebrew. Why? As we repeatedly repeat – Hebrew is “wholeness” and “totality” rooted.
The revelations are seen in their “totality”; thus Revelation. If Greek thinking were behind it we would expect “Revelations” plural.
- The KG of Revelation is very Semitic. This is acknowledged even by those Western Tradition scholars who are the most stridently “Replacement Theology” and anti-Semitic.
They also freely grant the very Semitic nature of Yochanon’s Gospel (such as Wm. Hendriksen and C. K. Barrett).
- Based in part on the above and that the LORD Himself makes clear that the Israelites could have, in Hebrew, no king “of foreignness” Dt. 17:14-16, v. 15, et. al, we would posit that Revelation was originally given in Hebrew.
Yochanon renders Revelation in KG for a KG speaking late 1st century KG speaking Roman Empire.
- The KG expression rendered by Yochanon in Rev. 1:8 is clearly Hebraic.
- Yeshua is clearly and consistently identified with David and the Jewish People in Revelation Rev. 5:5, 22:16.
- “Key” question: Why would Yeshua have called to Paul – from Heaven – in Hebrew26:14-15 – but then later switch to KG in Heaven?
- Heaven in Rev. 21 is clearly described in not one, not two, but at least three clearly Hebrew-Jewish ways:
- Jerusalem
- With the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel on the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem. Are the names of the Twelve largest Gentile “denominations” written on the walls? Why not?
- Is there any place where it says, “membership in such and such a denomination is a requirement for admittance to the heavenly Jerusalem”?
- The names of the twelve “Taught Ones” are written on the foundation of the City
- Are the names of the “Re-Formers” written there? Why not?
- It must be noted: In KG the references to Jerusalem, the Twelve Tribes, and the Twelve Taught Ones are specific. Why is this “key”? It means that with those references being specific rather than “in general” or “vague” (in KG grammar “qualitative”, “quality about” but not specific) the text means and can only mean exactly what it says!
- In both cases regarding the twelve tribes and twelve Taught Ones it is specifically absolute. (Articular genitive).
To return; the rabbis have said the Universe was created out of the Hebrew letters. Merely a fanciful notion? Some sort of “rabbinic fable”? Perhaps not! Why not?
The account of Creation in the opening of the Torah Gen. 1 repeatedly says “And God said…”. It does not only say that God made. What is the language of the account of Creation? It of course is only Hebrew.
We explain in our “Flour Without End Keys To Key Words In Scripture” that say in Hebrew more deeply in part means “an outer manifestation of an inward expression”. That to say is personal; and “key”, is that what is said is expected to be carried out.
The Torah does not say, “And God thought” but again, rather, said. It was active and it would have been said in Hebrew.
Thus, it may well be a deep truth that the Universe was created through the Hebrew letters and thus no mere rabbinic fable!
The Hebrew of say in the Creation account – just that word alone in its deeper meaning – reveals to us the following in part about the LORD. That He is real and knowable through His actions in the World. Western Man’s “intellect” is in no way needed! In fact, if anything it gets in the way of us “seeing” God.
Western Man’s intellect takes us away from God’s “heart” so to speak. By trying to limit God to what can be intellectually discerned and nice neat definitions, we lose the Majestic Majesty of God!
Too many people searching for God and needing Him have trouble establishing steadfastness in Him, because “things don’t seem to make sense”. Or, “where’s the reason and logic”, or “I need proof”.
In short if we cannot understand or things do not fit into our parameters for God, then “I doubt” or “I do not believe”.
In a sentence; if we look at Acts 17:16-32 we have all the proof we need that God is not known through the Greek-Western approach and its methodology!
In short as we will explain in our “keys” about the word “know” in Hebrew, it means by experience, intimacy, and personal relationship. Cf. Gen. 4:1 and Lk. 1:34, in KG “(a) man I have not known” but translated virgin.
Far far more hearts have been comforted and encouraged and uplifted by King David’s, in Hebrew, “song of exaltedness and wonder” Ps. 23, than anything Plato, Aristotle and Socrates ever wrote!
Does Yeshua – God’s Son – systematically make intellectually compelling arguments of reason and logic as the reason to believe in him? Cf. Yochanon 5:36-37.
Does Yeshua employ hysterics and histrionics which were very popular among the pagan cults?
In a sentence the Good News of Yeshua shows us that Yeshua is full of emotion; that he has a heart – not a mind – for his people the Jewish People. Yeshua at times feels in his guts for them, Matthew’s KG in Mt. 9:36. Translated compassion Matthew’s KG indicated it was “in his bowels”; meaning, it is deeply inside him that Yeshua really feels for this fellow Galilean Jews!
Unfortunately, while the end of Mt. 9 has been cited a million times in appeals to support missions trips in general, the specific context and Yeshua’s “feel in his guts” for his fellow Jews is missed. This is no generic mission trip support statement that Yeshua makes! We have an in-depth teaching we hope, on Mt. 9:35-38 in written form. It is part of 2,000+ pages of teaching we need your support to help us transcribe!
Lastly for here but by no means least we must consider the following albeit all too briefly. Yochanon’s Gospel opens with what even the most strident defenders of Western Traditional admit is the following.
Yochanon clearly writes the opening of his Gospel Yochanon 1:1-18, known as the “Prologue”, by directly modeling it after the Hebrew of Gen. 1.
Yochanon’s Gospel opening with the divinity of the Mashiach is not based on a systematic exposition of proof. Neither does Yochanon claim some ecstatic vision about the divinity of Yeshua. Rather, Yochanon models Yochanon 1:1-18 on the Torah’s Hebrew of Gen. 1. To anyone knowing both Hebrew and KG this is readily apparent.
In short for here; Yochanon’s syntax (sentence structure) is totally or virtually totally Hebraic – not at all classic Greek. In a sentence, Yochanon clearly thinks Hebraically – and 1st century Jewish as well for that matter!
One should note at least 3 hallmarks of the opening of Yochanon’s Gospel that are Hebraic:
- As with the Torah’s opening, in Hebrew when something is a given you do not defend it – no apologetics (defense) are employed in Gen. 1. God’s existence is a given; so the Torah moves on. 1 is not an apologetic for the existence of God!
- Yochanon uses short clauses strung together and connected by and. Notice how in Yochanon 1:1 there are 2 uses of and in a short sentence. Classic Greek especially, could have a 100-word sentence that makes sense.
None of this is found in Yochanon 1:1. Further and this is very key; Yochanon does not separate and compartmentalize what he says. There is a wholistic approach – which is part and parcel of Hebrew!
- Yochanon speaks of and emphasizes what more deeply is the “Divine Wisdom – Will Protection – Teaching” (translated Word) did and Rather than, giving abstract concepts or Western style theology about Yeshua. Cf. Yochanon 21:25.
What is translated Word is Logos in KG. Yochanon probably draws from a pre-1st century Jewish idea in Aramaic, Hebrew’s close sister language. Yochanon of course like other Renewed Covenant writers does not have a KG equivalent for some “key” Hebrew words. Or, the KG word lacks the depth of meaning of the Hebrew word they are thinking!
Perhaps the greatest example of this is the word Torah; meaning, “teaching, direction, revelation, law, instruction, “guidance”; “absorb seed in order to promote growth”. KG uses nomos meaning law but also meaning customary way of doing something.
In short, emerging post-Biblical Gentile leadership pushed their Jewish brothers away. That of course is completely contra to what Yeshua and later Paul both emphasized!
The loss of the Jewish brothers led to Gentile leadership without knowledge of a single letter of Hebrew, to think of the Torah as, a Western legal code of legal laws.
In a sentence – and this is extremely “key” – no one claims Yeshua, God forbid, ended the Torah because Yeshua said so. Even Paul never claims this; as one evangelical scholar very astutely points out!
In short; Western Tradition methodology is very seriously flawed in its very one-dimensional approach to Paul and the Law. How? It overlooks/misses the fact that there are approximately 20 verses in Acts 21-28 in which Paul repeatedly and consistently says “I have done nothing against the Torah nor the customs of the Fathers”.
Also overlooked; Acts 21:20 and the muriades “tens of thousands” of Torah observant Jewish brothers with zeal for the Torah!
Additionally in Acts 21 in short, Paul goes out of his way to demonstrate that reports of him telling Jews to abandon the Torah (Acts 21:21-22) are greatly mistaken and inaccurate!
Returning to Yochanon; he also very Hebraically and in a very unusual use in KG speaks of Yeshua having “tented in among us” Yochanon 1:14.
Though translated “dwelt” Yochanon uses in KG eskenosen, a form of skene meaning “tent”. Yochanon uses a noun tent, in verbal form, “had tented”.
Absolutely no Greek writer would have written this! As we have repeatedly repeated Plato said, “all matter is evil…only spirit is good”.
Yochanon in writing to late 1st century Gentile followers of Yeshua, especially those starting to become leaders, begins his 1st Letter very Hebraically. He writes of “seeing with the eyes” and “touching with the hands”, of the Divine Protection – Will Teaching, (translated Word KG “Logos”) “of the life”.
In short; Yochanon desires to counter prevailing Greek philosophical influenced thinking which thought Yeshua was a spirit who only appeared to be a man.
Yochanon – a Jew still very Hebraically oriented 5 ½ to 6 decades after his 3 years with the Master – desires that Gentile followers know Yeshua. Yeshua was no mere spirit; he also was in fact a real, concrete flesh and blood (Jewish) man 1 Yochanon 1:1-5.
How does the above relate to the Name of the LORD? Though the LORD is Transcendent and outside of Time, He is no “Higher Power”. He is no concept. Neither is He, “whatever you choose Him to be”.
He is the concrete reality, the ultimate reality, that as He revealed Himself to Moshe and to the Jewish People in Hebrew that “Be” “Exist” “Cause to Exist”.
Yeshua was known very concretely from a real concrete existence and life among the Jewish People; especially his fellow Jews of Galilee. He was known by his words and his illumination of the true essence of the Torah. Not “the Law”, some sort of Western legal code of legal Laws. Cf. Mt. 5-7:24.
Yeshua was known by Hebrew’s meaning of know; that means by experience, intimacy, personal relationship! Yeshua was known by what he be and do; not – not – by making intellectually compelling arguments for the concept idea of a Messiah.
When Yeshua’s people did not or could not grasp the profundity of the depth of his words – even by Hebraically using physical metaphors – he demonstrated by his life and actions who he “be”.
His Father, “Our Father Who Be In Heaven”, also demonstrated through His words and His actions, who He “Be”. (We say “be” because Hebrew has no word “is”).
The English word God is a noun. The Personal Name of the One True LORD WHO Lives, is a verb in Hebrew. The LORD “Be” “Exists” “Cause To Exist”. He is active.
He sustains the totality of the Universe moment to moment!
We have delayed enough! Now let us turn to start to learn, not what the Traditions of Men say about the LORD through their intellect or their individualistic ecstatic experiences. Let us begin to learn of the LORD by what He revealed through the language He chose to reveal it in – Hebrew.
LORD – the more direct meaning of the name in Hebrew
In Hebrew the name LORD is a verb meaning “Be” “Exist” “Cause to Exist”. Directly organically related in Hebrew to what is translated “I Am that I Am” of Ex. 3:13-15.
More deeply we would render the Hebrew “I Individually Be, that positively going forward and summing everything up, I Individually Be”.
Please see name further ahead for the meaning and significance of a name in Hebrew.
All too short for here; the Name of the LORD reveals to us that He “Be”. That is, that He is active, and is, was and can be known by His actions; the Creation and sustaining of the Universe. His actions with the real Fathers – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His active actions in the collective redemption of the Israelites. As well as, His concern for them both collectively and for each individually!
This is revealed in short through His Torah and His actions particularly in Exodus and, by in Hebrew, not the mere numbers of Israelites counted.
Rather, by His instructing Moshe to literally lift up “uplift the essence and substance and everything about”, the head of each male of the children of Israel.” “Each one is individually precious to me”.
That is how we would render the Hebrew of Numbers 1:2-3.
In short, “Numbers” is no mere list of “one boring census after another”. That is English. In Hebrew it is known as “Wilderness”. It is really about the experiences of the Israelites with the LORD in the wilderness after their redemption from Egypt!
“Numbers” opens with in Hebrew in Num. 1:2 a second word translated “count”. It has a much deeper meaning! It means in part “invest with responsibility”. It also is used to indicate counting things because each one of those Israelites is precious – special to the LORD!
In the context of males 20 years and older being part of the units of the army for Israel, each one is “invested with responsibility” and “each is precious to me” says the LORD.
A “key” to note; the idea of “invest with responsibility” is what Peter more deeply actually says in 2 Pet. 1:16. He was not only an “eyewitness” of the great (KG “mega”) glory of Yeshua on the Mt. of Transfiguration Luke 9:28-36.
In short, Peter’s KG in 2 Pet. 1:16 is a rough KG equivalent to the Hebrew word for “invest with responsibility”.
It must be remembered that Peter was a Jew of Galilee for decades before Yeshua sends him out to “feed my sheep” Yochanon 21:15-17. Very briefly for here, that whole idea is totally Torah, Hebrew Scripture, and Hebrew based. Cf. Gen. 48:16-17 et al.!
Before Peter was post-Biblically “re-cast” as “St. Peter the first Pope”, he was not merely an “eyewitness” to the Transfiguration of Yeshua”. He was “invested with the responsibility” of accurately and authentically giving an account of it.
In context in 2 Pet. it is to correct “the clever wisdom myths” (in KG) of Yeshua that were already circulating in the Gentile world within 3 decades after Yeshua’s time on Earth. Cf. 2 Pet. as a whole and specifically on the immediately above, 2 Pet. 1:16.
Only Hebrew tells us the Personal LORD “Be” “Exist” “Cause to exist”. Only in Hebrew is it organically related to the “I Individually Will Be” of Ex. 3:13-15.
KG only has the word kurios for both LORD and Lord. Kurios is used in KG for both LORD and Lord. Scholars point out that in the RCS at times it is not clear if the Father is being referred to or, Yeshua as Lord.
In Hebrew LORD and Lord are two distinct words; thus it is obvious what exactly is being referred to.
LORD in Hebrew is seen not only as the Personal Name of God but also – very significantly – it is also that of the covenant-keeping LORD. Cf. Ex. 6:2-8.
In rabbinic tradition LORD is also seen as indicating that God is a God of mercy who exercises mercy! In Hebrew “mercy” is much deeper than that. Please see “loving-kindness” or “mercy” ahead.
In short for here the Israelites are the polar opposites of the Greek philosophers. Greek philosophers were hugely hugely influential on the development of post-Biblical Western Tradition. Why? To Moshe, David, the other Psalmists, Solomon, and the Prophets, it is absolutely clear that the “whole” of Creation comes from and is constantly sustained by the LORD. Nothing in their physical world is anything other than inherently good. Plato saw the world very differently.
This is most clearly borne out by the account about Creation in Gen. 1. There God sees, in Hebrew, not merely “good” – but more deeply – “good” “well-being, bring benefits to Man”, the things of Creation. Plato saw all matter as evil.
Further as anyone who has been to Israel knows, the Land of Israel is no ordinary place! There is a certain “weightiness” and a very palpable sense of Hebrew’s deeper meaning of “glory”; “weightiness weight of glory”. This is most especially so in the Old City and Western Wall area of Jerusalem.
It is clear then why the Land with its beautifully rugged hills and deep valleys would so influence the Hebrew writers of the Bible!
Deeper still it must be remembered in short that the Prophets are not primarily “predictors of the future”; rather they are “channels” for the LORD to communicate to His People through. Thus the Prophets, and David and the Psalmists a few hundred years prior to the Prophets, speak as they do about the Land and about Jerusalem.
It is “key” to keep in mind Heaven, actually “Heavens” plural in Hebrew, is described not as a concept. Heaven is not described in vague or general terms.
The first description of Heaven is found with Moshe, Aaron, Nadav and Avihu (2 of Aaron’s sons) along with literally 70 “graybeards” (“elders”), in Ex. 24:9-10. In context – always “key” – they are at the top of Mt. Sinai during an unprecedented event in human history. That is, the LORD’s revelatory real appearance (albeit in a cloud) to One People in one place at one time!
Immediately preceding Moshe receiving the Tablets with the LORD’s word written on them (Ex. 24:12; cf. Ex. 31:18, 34:1), in Ex. 24:10 Moshe and the others “see” the God of Israel. “And under His feet like (the) making (of) stones (of) the positive bearer of existence-actuality the sapphire – and in connectedness like/as a model, (the) essence of (the) Heavens, to/for/benefit, absolutely pure”.
Commentators point out – the specific and concrete description of Heaven in Rev. 21-22 is clearly drawn from the passage in Exodus above.
Revelation is no “theological concept”; it is not about a “philosophy” or “abstractions” of the Final Events as well as what is seen in Heaven.
Rev. 20 speaks in specific –not general terms – of the Lake of Fire and the books being opened at Judgment. Heaven again, is “concrete specific” in Rev. 21 about the heavenly Jerusalem and the names of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and the Twelve Taught Ones of Yeshua. Those names are written on the city’s walls and foundation accordingly.
For all their “sophos” “wisdom” and “philosophy” literally KG for “love (of) wisdom” the best the Athenians could come up with was a statue to an “agnostw Thew”, literally, “(an) Unknown God”.
Yet post-Biblically in the first centuries after Yeshua it was to Athens that emerging Gentile leadership – deliberately – turned to! Thus, how could they know what the LORD says about Himself?
The Early Gentile Fathers knew not a letter of Hebrew – nor did they want to. That would have required turning to the Jewish brothers whom tragically beyond words they also deliberately pushed aside.
Or, it would have meant turning to “the Jews” whom they began separating from in all ways; except to try to “convert them”. Exactly the opposite of what Gentiles were supposed to do, Rom. 11:11!
Thus in short; intellectual speculation and the “intellect”, based initially on Greek thinking and language later replaced by Latin, became how God was known.
To their credit at least Early Gentile leadership – nor the “Re-Formers” either – claimed God had appeared or spoken directly to them in any way!
What does this mean? The “key” question is, “which would you consider the best way to learn of the LORD?” Through the “Intellect”? Through “theoretical speculation”? Developing abstract theology of “definitions” of God, designed to “fit” Him within Man’s puny, limited “intellect”?
Job questioned their LORD. What was the LORD’s response? To give a “definition” of Himself they could “comprehend”? To give them “systematic theology? No. He asked Job, “Where were you in My (setting) the mystical foundation in an encompassing way (of the) Earth? Tell if you know (by personal experience, intimacy, relationship) and understanding – between God’s fact and Man’s fiction” Job 38:4.
The LORD then goes on to very concretely say to Job what He did, what His concrete actions were in Creation. Cf. Job 42:5-6, etc., etc.
Moshe and David did not think that the LORD actually had “feet” “an arm” “ears” etc. They unlike others that did not have the same personal experience with the LORD, embraced the physical because the “whole” “totality” and “connectedness” of everything material was of and through and sustained by Him! Cf. Paul in Eph. 3:18-19; cf. Rom. 13:1, v. 7.
The Jewish brothers never saw Yeshua in terms of a spirit that only appeared to be a man. Yeshua was totally concrete to them. If anything, he seemed at times “too human”. Their problem – and that of the rest of the Jewish people in Israel – was the divinity issue.
The pagans had no problem with a “divine savior son of a deity”. The pagans’ difficulty? That Yeshua was an actual concrete (and specifically Jewish ) man. The spirit part was no problem; the “flesh became” (cf. Yochanon 1:14) was.
In short the Personal LORD was known according to Hebrew’s – not Greek’s, Latin’s, or English’s – meaning of “know”. As we explain, know in Hebrew in part means “personal experience, intimacy, relationship.
As we have pointed out elsewhere in our teaching Yeshua’s mother Miriam – not “Mary” – uses this exact idea in responding to the angel Lk. 1:30-34. Though translated “…I am a virgin” Luke’s KG reflects an Hebraic original “…andra oi givwskw” “(a) man in fact not, I do not know” Lk. 1:34.
This – as a vast myriad of things do – originates in the Torah. In this instance Gen. 4:1 “..and Adam knew (very directly) his wife; and she conceived and birthed Cain…”.
The angel that speaks to Yeshua’s mother Miriam – a Galilean Jewess 15-16 years old – speaks in concrete terms about the son she will bear. He will be son of the Most High. He will be given the throne of his father David. He will rule over “very specifically the house Jacob” in Luke’s KG rendering Lk. 1:32-33.
The angel does not give a concept of the son young Miriam has been chosen to bear. Nor are there “hysterics and histrionics” employed in order to whip Miriam into a frenzy so she will believe.
Her son Yeshua employs neither of the two most popular techniques of the centuries, and especially the last century. Does Yeshua utilize Aristotelian reason and logic to intellectually convince his fellow Jews who he is? Does he intellectually compel them to believe?
Does Yeshua – anywhere – employ hysterics and histrionics? Does he whip crowds of fellow Galilean Jews into a frenzy so that they fall over themselves? If so, were in the Gospel account is this?
In short; Yeshua illuminates the essence of the Torah for them Mt. 5-7:24. Yeshua illuminates the “concrete be and do” that the Torah is truly about.
There is no systematic theology – anywhere – anywhere – by Yeshua. As does His Father and in the Hebrew Bible, Yeshua often asks questions, rather than just making declarative statements about himself.
The LORD’s first question to Man, to the “crown of His Creation”, Adam, was in Hebrew not merely “where are you?”. That form of “where” is used by the LORD to Job, again in Job 38:4. “Where were you located…”. To the first man Adam, in Hebrew it was a different “where”; “where are you, something is in isolation” Gen. 3:9.
In Gen. 3:9 the LORD called, He invited. He wanted in a sense that Adam “tear himself away” from where Adam was. “Call” in Hebrew is organically directly related to the verb “tear, tear away” i.e. “pull in opposite directions”.
Adam’s concrete action of eating the fruit – the Hebrew is “fruit” but not specifically an “apple” – pulled Adam in the opposite direction; it pulled him in the opposite direction. It caused a tear between Adam and God. In short, what was Adam’s real sin? Adam “tore away” from God by failure to “do” the concrete specific “fulfilling of which leads to fullness of life”.
This was not merely “command” – that again is English. Gen. 2:7.
Adam’s failure was not that he changed his theological position about the fruit. Adam’s real failure was his action of eating the one fruit that God said in not doing, would be in Hebrew “fulfilling of which leads to fullness of life” Gen. 2:7.
The LORD deals with Adam’s failure – as shocking as it sounds the Torah does not specifically call it a sin – in a positive way. In short as the rabbis correctly and astutely point out, the last 80% of Genesis – Gen. 12-50 – is the LORD beginning to rectify what Adam had done. How? By working through the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The rabbis are very correct that the last 80% of Genesis – after the “Fall” – is not a tome bemoaning what Adam did and the awful fate that now awaits Man.
That is the negative gospel of Augustine; but it is not what the Torah says the LORD said! The LORD positively deals with the situation after the Fall through the Patriarchs.
They have personal experience with the LORD. Yes, they very much do go through trials and tribulations. The LORD however is always with them.
The rabbis correctly point out that the formation of the Patriarchs segues directly into the formation of the Jewish People. A People who will carry the literal Word of the LORD forward as their “mission – function – purpose” (Cf. Ex. 4:22-33, Dt. 4-7. Ish. 42:6, 43:10, etc. Zech. 8, Ps. 147:19-20; cf. Gen. 12:2-3 et al. Cf. Mt. 1, 10:1-7, 28:19-20, Lk. 1:30-34, Yochanon 4:22, Rom. 9-11 especially 11:17-24, Eph. 2:19-20, Rev. 7).
The post-Biblical “woe is me” preached or railed at or “bully pulpited” at the Gentile, is the negative gospel of Augustine. It is not the positive Gospel of Yeshua Hamashiach!
The fact is as we have repeatedly repeated in our teaching; the Kingdom is mentioned about 11 1/2 times to 1 regarding Hell. In the Gospel it is literally 10 to 1 (111 to 11).
In short this means that the Personal LORD sees His Creation – and Man especially – as having tremendous potential! In short the post-Biblical, Re-form Theology emphasis on a God Who needs “propitiation” is Augustinian; but not the Biblical model!
And God willing, much more to follow!