Hebrew Mind versus Greek Thought Part 6

Galatians 3

We are walking into today:  Hebrew Mind versus Greek Thought Part 6

Witness doing throughout the Bible:   H6213 `asah--to do, fashion, accomplish, make, work, make, produce

Isa 58:13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing H6213 thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing H6213 thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

The Torah testifies...............
 Exo 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing H6213 wonders?

The prophets proclaim..................
 Neh 6:3 And I sent messengers unto them, saying, I am doing H6213 a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?

The writings bear witness...........................
 2 Ch 20:32 And he walked in the way of Asa his father, and departed not from it, doing H6213 that which was right in the sight of the LORD.

Isa 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth H6213 this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing H6213 any evil.

HOW DID THE HEBREWS VIEW The Most High?
“The biblical authors never argue the existence of the Most High; they only assume it. The Most High is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrew primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving the Most High” (i.e., a the Most High who loves), rather than “the Most High is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existences of the Most High, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, the word-for-word accuracy and use of quotations, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture”

A CIRCULAR VERSUS A LINEAR VIEW OF The Most High 

“The Hebrew mind viewed the Most High quite differently from the systematic theological thinking of the West, which defines the Most High and his work with creation in linear manner. The Western-style treatment of the divine character attempts to explain inconsistencies and harmonize contradictions systematically. The Hebrew mind was filled with wonder at the mystery of the Most High. The vastness of the Most High and his inscrutable [uninvestigatible] ways left them awestruck. Inconsistencies and contradictions are intimately related to human, finite understanding of the infinite the Most High. He is beyond human comprehension. First-century Jews approached the Most High through an interactive associative mentality. The fact that the Most High is incomprehensible is very much a part of Hebrew thought processes. The Western mind, however, explains everything but understands so little of the divine nature. The Hebrew mind, on the other hand, is overpowered by a sense of wonder and amazement. It thrives on the inconsistencies and contradictions of the one awe-inspiring the Most High” (Brad Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian, Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1997, p. 25). Young continues, “Paul has a conceptual approach to theology. It is not linear. His theological worldview is circular and interactive. A systematic [or Western] approach to Paul draws a straight line and follows his reasoning from creation and the fall all the way along to the redemptive suffering of [Yahusha] and the second coming. But Paul is much more complex and far less linear and systematic. On the one hand, Paul views history as moving toward the goal of the Most High’s redemptive plan, which will culminate in the Parousia and the eschatological judgment; on the other, he views the Most High through the prism of perplexing curiosity, which inspires wonder. He does not preach a cycle of salvation history, but the apostle does conceive of the divine in a circular dynamic process. In his contemplation of the mystery of the Most High, like other Hebrew theologians of his day, the apostle is content to leave questions unanswered and inconsistencies unresolved. He views theology as a conceptual whole”.

“As a Hebrew theologian, Paul pursues a conceptual approach to his teachings. His thought processes are not linear but circular. His theological concepts are interactive. Indeed, they are connected one with another in continuous motion. Paul’s keen intellect works quickly. The apostle understands the Most High and his great love for all humanity as a vibrant whole. One concept belongs to a complex of interactive ideas. Each term he uses to communicate his thought is clustered with other interactive concepts concerning the Most High’s relationship to people” (Young, p. 41). For Paul and the Hebrew mind, the Torah encompasses so much of what can be known about the Most High in the conceptual worldview. Paul focuses on the sum of the whole instead of dissecting the individual parts (Young, pp. 25-26). “When the contours of Pauline thought are considered in a cycle of interactive concepts rather than in a straight line where each new idea supersedes and eliminates the previous one, the apostle’s approach to the Most High is given fresh vigor. It is a Jewish way of thinking. Paul, for instance, does not annul Torah by the preaching of grace. Was not the giving of Torah a powerful manifestation of divine grace? In reality, grace and Torah are interrelated (Young, p. 42).

HEBREW BLOCK LOGIC VERSUS GREEK STEP LOGIC

 “The use of what may be termed block logic is another important contour of Hebrew thought. Greek logic, which has to a large extent influenced the Western world was different. The Greeks often used a tightly contained step logic whereby one would argue from premises to a conclusion, each step linked tightly to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion, however, was usually limited to one point of view—the human being’s perception of reality” (Wilson, p. 150). 

“By contrast, the Hebrews often made use  of block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one block represented the human perspective on truth and the other represented the divine. This way of thinking created a propensity for paradox, antinomy, or apparent contradiction, as one block stood in tension—often illogical relation—to the other. Hence, polarity of thought or dialectic often characterized block logic.”

“It is particularly difficult for Westerners—those whose thought-patterns have been influenced more by the Greeks and Romans than by the Hebrews—to piece together the block logic of Scripture. When we open the Bible, therefore, since we are not from the eastern cultures, we are invited…to ‘undergo a kind of intellectual conversion’ to the Hebraic world of the East. 

“Let us turn, then to some of the many examples of block logic found throughout Scripture. The book of Exodus says that Pharaoh hardened his heart, but it also says that God hardened it (Ex. 8:15; cf. 7:3). The prophets teach that God is both wrathful and merciful (Isa. 45:7; Hab. 3:2). The New Testament refers to [Yeshua] as the ‘Lamb of God’ and the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ (Jn. 1:29, 36; Rev. 5:5). Hell is described as both ‘blackest darkness’ and the firey lake’ (Jude 13; Rev. 19:20). In terms of salvation, [Yeshua] said, ‘whoever comes to me I will never drive away,’ yet no one can come ‘unless the Father draws him’ (Jn. 6:37, 44). To find life you must lose it (Mt. 10:39). When you are weak, then you are strong (2 Cor. 12:10). The way up (exhaltation) is the way down (humility) (Lk. 14:11). ‘Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated’ (Rom. 9:13; Mal. 1:3). “Consideration of certain forms of block logic may give one the impression that divine sovereignty and human responsibility were incompatible. The Hebrews, however, sense no violation of their freedom as they accomplish God’s purposes. Upon a more careful reading of the biblical text one can often observe that the Bible views one block from the perspective of divine transcendence—God says, ‘I will harden Pharaoh’s heart’—and the other from a human point of view—‘Pharoah hardened his heart’ (Ex. 4:21; 7:3,13; 8:15). The same is often true of Scriptures which deal with themes of predestination/election and free will/human freedom.

“In sum, the Hebrew mind could handle this dynamic tension of the language of paradox, confident that ‘all is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven’…Divine sovereignty and human responsibility were not incompatible. “The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was ‘under the sun’ (Ecc. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to over-systematize or forced harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or the puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what the Most High has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sides of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand. 

“While philosophical and structural divisions of learning obviously have an important role to play in contemporary education, our Western culture—especially on most levels of secular and Christian instruction—has provided little understanding concerning the nature of Hebrew thought. Thus we have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schematization. Neither the Most High nor his Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both the Most High and his Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation” (Wilson, pp. 150-152).

In conclusion, Wilson summarizes the concept of Hebrew block logic when he states, “The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth—they experienced truth…[T]ruth is as much an encounter as it is propositions…To the Hebrew, the deed was always more important than the creed. He was not stymied by language that appeared contradictory from a human point of view. Neither did he feel compelled to reconcile what seemed irreconcilable. He believed that the Most High ultimately was greater than any human attempt at systematizing truth. “Walking in truth’ (2 Jn. 4) and ‘living the truth’ (1 Jn. 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth. In the words of the renowned biblical scholar Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchikk, “we [Jews] are practical. We are more interested in discovering what the Most High wants man to do than we are in describing the Most High’s essence…as a teacher, I never try to solve questions because most questions are unsolvable.’ He concludes, ‘Judaism is never afraid of contradictions…it acknowledges that full reconciliation of the two is possible only in the Most High. He is the coincidence of opposites’” (Wilson, p. 153).

Shema selah we must remain in motion, dynamic as our Hebrew roots demand!! https://youtu.be/6uXN1WHBrHM