Jesus the Aleph-Tav? (Genesis 1:1, Revelation 21:6)

A few people asked me about the nature of the errors in this video (mentioned in my last post and also viewable as a youtube video). The content of the video can also be found (more or less) in posts here and here. The basic thrust of this bizarre claim: Jesus is the logos (John 1:1), which must mean written word; Jesus is the Alpha and Omega (Rev 21:6), which is a translation from Hebrew of Jesus the Aleph and Tav; the Hebrew word et (את, aleph tav) is an untranslatable word found in Genesis 1:1; therefore Jesus' claim that he is the logos and the Alpha and Omega is actually a claim that his name is את and is written in Genesis 1:1.

Here is a sampling of the linguistic errors in the video:

1) Logos (λόγος) and rhema (ῥῆμα) no longer have the distinct meanings of "word as idea" and "spoken word" - they are mostly synonymous by the time of the NT (see BDAG or another reputable Greek dictionary).

2) The speaker claims that logos must mean "written word" - simply not true. Using BDAG or finding the occurrences of logos in the NT and LXX is a quick way to disprove this mistake.

3) Jesus likely spoke all three languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), although there is some debate on this (see Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, s.v. "Languages of Palestine" by M.O. Wise).

4) There is no evidence that Revelation is "spoken in Hebrew and written in Greek." If you are very familiar with both languages, you can recognize Greek that has been translated from Hebrew, as in the LXX or in the quotations of the OT in the NT. Those marks of "translation Greek" are not found in most of Revelation, except in the quotes and allusions to the OT.

5) The worst error: the Hebrew word et (את, aleph tav) is not at all "mysterious" or "untranslatable;" in fact, I remember learning its meaning during the second week of introductory Hebrew. It is a very common word used to identify the direct object (as well as a few other less common functions). English identifies the direct object by the noun's position in the sentence; languages like Greek, Latin and German identify the direct object by changing the ending of the noun; and Hebrew marks the direct object with the word את.
6) אֵת works roughly like our word "to" in the sense that it is very common (11,000 occurrences in the OT) and serves more of a grammatical function than a meaning function. If אֵת refers to the Messiah, then there are thousands of meaningless statements in the OT, like Gen 2:6 "a mist used to rise from the ground to water אֵת the whole surface of the ground" or Gen 10:8 "Cush fathered אֵת Nimrod..."

The Difference Between Grace and Mercy

Question: What is the difference between grace and mercy?

When I was growing up in church, I used to hear the saying, "Mercy is when you don't get what you deserve, and grace is when you get what you don't deserve." The idea was that mercy is withholding deserved punishment, and grace is an undeserved gift. In recent years, I have heard people say that when you first fail, you need grace, but if you continue to fail, then you need mercy.

Both ideas roughly represent what modern people mean when they say mercy or grace in English. But the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and so those definitions are not adequate when we read the Bible, although they aren't completely wrong, either.

So before we get simple, we'll have to get a little complicated. Words in all languages change their meaning depending on their context. For example, in English, the word head can refer to a leader, a bathroom on a ship, the froth on beer, a high peninsula, or many other things depending on the context. Grace and mercy in the biblical languages are no different - they have different meanings depending on the context.

Grace in the Old Testament: Grace is the translation of the Hebrew cheyn, meaning favor. Two good examples are "But Noah found grace / favor in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:8) and "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace / favor to the humble" (Prov 3:34). In these sorts of passages, cheyn refers to God (or people) being favorably disposed to do good things for someone.

Grace in the New Testament: Grace is the translation of the Greek charis. The basic sense of charis is a gift, or the generosity that inspires that gift. So when Paul says, "For by grace you are saved through faith..." (Eph 2:8), we can say that it is by God's sheer generosity that we receive the gift of salvation (for more on charis, see this post).

Mercy in the OT and in the Gospels: Mercy translates the Hebrew chesed (in the OT) and the Greek eleos and oiktirmos (in the NT). Mercy, like compassion, is when we see someone in need and respond with both pity and action. The blind man of Jericho cried out to Jesus for mercy, because he was in great need (Luke 18:38-39). The Samaritan is described as merciful because he helped the injured traveller (Luke 10:37). Giving to the poor is an act of mercy (eleemosune, Matt 6:2-4). When Jesus blessed the merciful (Matt 5:7), he was talking about people who respond with pity and action to those in need.

Mercy in Paul's letters: Paul usually uses mercy in the same way as the Gospels and the OT. But sometimes, Paul uses the word mercy to describe God's forgiveness of our sins (Rom 11:30-32, 1 Tim 1:13). This is closely related to the meaning of mercy in the rest of the Bible. If we see the hungry, showing mercy means feeding them; when God sees sinners, showing mercy means providing forgiveness.

So, what's the simple answer to the question? Grace and mercy are not totally different; both attributes are at work when God saves us. It is mercy because God sees our desperate need and acts out of pity. It is grace because God gives salvation generously. But we need to be careful not to see mercy and grace as only gifts from God. God expects us to give mercy by helping those in need, and to be gracious by being generous with all that we have.

The picture: Noah's Ark, by Peter Spier. One of my sons loved this book. The first page begins "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord," and the last page shows Noah planting a vineyard. One day he asked me if God liked grapes. I said I was sure he did, but why did he ask? He answered, "Because Noah found grapes in the eyes of the Lord."

Jesus' First Disciples in John (John 1:19-51)

In John 1:19-51, John the Baptist (JTB) and the first five disciples all testify about the identity of Jesus. This passage is primarily about the identity of Jesus as anointed ruler, teacher, and sacrifice. The quality of the first followers’ discipleship is revealed by its basis in faith (even with no "signs" yet) and its expression in open testimony to others.

Random observations on John 1:19-51:

John the Baptist denies being the Christ, the Prophet, or Elijah. The reason for the first denial is obvious. He denies the second title because it is a reference to the “Prophet like Moses” (Deut 18:15-18; cp. John 7:40-41). He denies the third title, perhaps because in John, Jesus fills many of the Elijah roles (more on this below, and in John 2, 4, and 6).

Titles/Roles for Jesus: The Lord; Lamb of God (2x); The one who takes away the sins of the world; The one who comes after John / came before John (2x); The one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit; The Son of God (2x);Rabbi / Teacher (2x); Messiah / Christ; The one whom Moses and the Prophets wrote about; Jesus, son of Joseph, of Nazareth; King of Israel. This might count as seven titles for Jesus, plus four descriptive phrases; but in John, we have to watch the tendency to spot 7s whenever we wish, conveniently stopping our count at seven.

Seeing: John sees Jesus; “Look! The Lamb of God”; “I have seen the Spirit descending”; “I have seen and testified”; and seeing Jesus, he said; “Look! The Lamb of God”; turning and seeing them, he said…; “Come, and you will see”; Then they came and saw; When Jesus saw [Simon Peter]; Philip said, “come and see” ; Jesus said about Nathanael, “Look , an Israelite indeed” ; “I saw you under the fig tree”; “You will see greater things”; “you will see the heavens opened.” Greek note: John uses four essentially synonymous words for seeing in this chapter: blepo, emblepo, horao, theaomai.

Seeking/finding (zeteo / heurisko): Jesus says to them “What do you seek?” ; Andrew first finds his own brother Peter; “We have found the Messiah” ; Jesus finds Phillip; Phillip finds Nathanael; “We have found the one that Moses wrote about.”

Following (akoloutheo): The two disciples heard John and followed Jesus; Jesus saw them following; Andrew was one of the two who followed Jesus; Jesus said to Phillip, “Follow me.” Note pattern: JTB speaks, Andrew (and John?) follow; Andrew speaks, Peter follows; Jesus speaks, Phillip follows; Phillip speaks, Nathanael follows.

Misunderstanding: Phillip and Nathanael think that Jesus is from Nazareth, but Jesus is from Bethlehem (a private joke between John and his readers, see also Jn 7:41-42, 52). More importantly in John, Jesus is from God more than he is from any town. The disciples incompletely (but not incorrectly) understand Jesus – all their titles for Jesus refer to his kingly and teaching roles. Only JTB knows that Jesus will die for sins.

Jesus reveals God: “ You will see the heavens opened” recalls the vision of God in Ezek 1, and “angels ascending and descending” recalls the vision of God in Gen 28. The disciples will experience God through Jesus. Some irony here, since Jn 1:18 claims that no one has ever seen God, and Jn 1:51-52 alludes to two OT visions of God.

Other OT allusions:

• “Spirit remaining on him” in Jn 1:32 alludes to Isa 11:2, “The Spirit of God will rest upon him,” referring to the Spirit’s empowerment of the messianic Branch (Isa 11:1-2). Perhaps it also reminds us of David, on whom the Spirit remained, unlike Saul.
• The disciples ask where Jesus is staying; Jesus says “come and see” (Jn 1:39, 46). The king of Aram tells his servants to “come and see” where Elisha is staying (2 Ki 6:13 LXX).
• Jesus finds Phillip and says “follow me” (Jn 1:43). Elijah finds Elisha and Elisha says “I will follow you” (1 Ki 19:19-20).

These last two are very subtle allusions, and are open to challenge. But since John often compares Jesus to Elijah / Elisha, it is possible that John intended his readers to see these allusions.

The picture: Philip brings Nathanael, painted by one of the Mafa tribe of North Africa.

Radio Interviews

Last week, I recorded two radio interviews with Keli'i Akina, host of YFC for Parents. They will be aired on KGU 760AM on Tuesday, January 20th and Tuesday, January 27th at 6:00pm. They will be re-aired on Saturday, January 24th and Saturday, January 31st at 5:00pm. They will also be available as podcasts (see the right margin of this blog for podcasts).

On both shows, Keli'i and I discussed a passage of Scripture and talked about how to interpret. During the first interview, we talked about John 21 and the common misconceptions among Christians about the Greek words agape and phileo. In the second interview, we looked at the call of Abraham in Genesis 12.

I will be speaking at some of the services at my home church, Hope Chapel West Oahu, on February 14-15. DJ Garces will do the other services. We will be speaking from the book of Exodus. I will also podcast that sermon.

Make Me a Higher Love? (agape/phileo)

Here's a question posted last week: "In John 21:15-17 Jesus asks three times if Simon Peter loves him. The first two times Jesus uses agapao for love and in both Simon Peter's replies phileo is used. Then the third time Jesus asks he uses phileo as well and so does Simon Peter. Is there any significance to this?"

A few weeks ago, my son's soccer coach advised the boys to put on jackets so that they wouldn't catch cold after practice. He believed that you could catch a cold if you got chilly after exercise. This belief was once so widespread that people just knew it to be true, even though doctors and scientists agree that colds are caused by viruses, not chill. OK, I know that rhinoviruses thrive better in cold, dry air, but you get my point - sometimes something that everyone knows is untrue.

I mention this story because many Christians in America just know that agape is a Greek word that refers to divine, unconditional love, a higher love than any other. But as a matter of fact, agape does not have this special meaning in Greek, and is only slightly different in meaning from phileo. Agape means "love," and it has about the same range of meaning as the English word "love." It can refer to loving people, food, God, money, or anything else. It can refer to selfless love or selfish love, depending on the context. Surprisingly, Greek scholars and New Testament scholars widely agree on this conclusion, but most other Christians, including many pastors, are unaware of it. I am not aware of any living Greek scholar who accepts the view of agape that is widely proclaimed from the pulpit. (By the way, agapao is the verb form of agape, and phileo is the verb form of philia; I use them interchangeably in this post).

Here's some of the evidence:

1) Philosophers in ancient Greece could not agree on the precise difference between agape and philia, and could not agree on which one was higher. Most philosophers actually asserted that philia was a higher love, because of the high value that philosophers placed on friendship.

2) The translators of the LXX (an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) regularly used agapao to translate the Hebrew word ahav, which is also a very generic word for love in Hebrew.

3) While agape is often used to describe positive forms of love, it is also used to describe defective forms of love (Luke 6:32, John 3:19, Deut 21:15 LXX), the love of money (2 Pet 2:15, Isa 1:23 LXX), the love of sin (Rev 22:15, Jer 14:10, Hos 12:7 LXX), the love for honor (Luke 11:43, John 12:43), legitimate sexual desire (Song of Solomon 1:3, 4, 7, 3:1-4 LXX) and even lust (Gen 34:2-3, Jdg 16:4, 2 Sam 13:3-15 LXX). In other words, agape is like the English word love - it can have a positive or negative meaning depending on its context.

4) Although there are some slight differences in usage between agapao and phileo, they are used interchangeably at times in the Bible. Take a look at Luke 11:43/20:46; John 3:35/5:20; John 11:3/11:5/11:36; John 14:21/14:23/16:27; and Heb 12:6/Rev 3:19. In each of these cases, almost identical sentences use phileo or agapao with no apparent difference in meaning. In some cases, phileo is used for very high forms of love, such as the love between the Father and the Son.

For some people, this information is bad news. They like the idea that the Bible has a special word that means divine, unconditional love, and it disturbs them that the evidence does not support this view. But here's the good news: although Greek and Hebrew words for love do not have this special nuance, God's love is divine, giving and unconditional, no matter which word we use to communicate it. It's not the word for love that matters, but the many sentences, paragraphs, and stories about God's love that matter. Ideas don't have to be found in single words to be valid - in fact, most ideas require multiple words to be communicated.

Next post: if agapao and phileo mean almost the same thing, what was John trying to say at the breakfast scene in John 21:15-17?

The picture: The Miraculous Draught of Fish, by Konrad Witz, 1443.

Random Smatterings - Nimrod

We have a small group Bible study that meets in our home under the name "Wananada Wednesdays." We have been studying the book of Genesis during this season. Although I think we have generally been focusing on matters of greater import, this week a question about "Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord" in Genesis 10 came up. Why is Nimrod a heroic figure in Genesis, but a term of derision in modern English slang?

Turns out that etymology experts are uncertain. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes that hunters have sometimes been called nimrods as an allusion to the biblical hunter, and sometimes incompetent hunters have facetiously been called "nimrod," starting with a literary reference in 1933.

It may be Bugs Bunny that popularized this ironic use of "nimrod" (although the OED doesn't mention it). Bugs was known to occasionally call Elmer "poor little nimrod." The biblically illiterate audience was probably unaware of the allusion and picked it up as an insult for an incompetent person.

The pictures: above, Sargon I of Assyria, whom some identify with Nimrod; below, Elmer Fudd of Warner Brothers, whom Bugs Bunny identifies as "nimrod."

That Melchizedek Guy (Psalm 110, Hebrews 5-7)

Question: What is the cultural/historical significance of Psalm 110:7? Am I correct that this is a messianic psalm? "He shall drink from the stream by the wayside, therefore he shall lift up his head." - Anonymous

Psalm 110 is a fascinating hymn written to honor the king of Israel and the King above him. It has special application to King David, but was likely sung on other occasions in honor of later kings of Israel. Since Jesus the Messiah is (among other things) King of Israel and descendant of David, Psalm 110 also can be applied to him (as we find in Matt 22:41-46, Acts 2:34-36, and Hebrews 1:13, and chs. 5-7).

The opening line is perhaps a little clearer in this translation from Hebrew: "Yahweh said to my master (adonai)..." This Psalm pictures God speaking a war-blessing over the king of Israel. The king will rule even with enemies around (v. 2); the people of Israel will serve in battle willingly (v. 3), the enemies will be defeated (vv. 5-6); and after war, the king will receive refreshment and rest from God (v. 7).

Verse 4 seems rather strange to us today. Why would a war-blessing describe the king of Israel as "a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek"? There is a somewhat convoluted story behind this title. Jerusalem (earlier called Jebus, even earlier called Salem) was under the control of the Jebusites until the time of David. After becoming king, David captured the city and made it his capital (2 Samuel 5:6-10). By ancient custom, he thus acquired the title of the previous king of Jerusalem - Melchizedek. This word, meaning "righteous king," was possibly a hereditary title rather than a personal name. As in other ancient near eastern cities, the king of Jerusalem was also the city's high priest. In the time of Abraham, the king of Jerusalem (Salem) served El Elyon - the Most High God (Gen 14:18-20). Of course, Gen 14 refers to events over 1000 years before David, so we have no idea if the Jebusite kings of Jerusalem still served El Elyon at the time of David. They were still using the hereditary title Adoni-zedek (Master of Righteousness) at the time of Joshua (Josh 10:1).

So the original meaning of the psalm was that God had provided David with victory over Jerusalem, a new title, and rest from war. In later generations, the psalm could be sung in faith that God would again provide victory to other faithful kings. As the NT points out, Ps 110 ultimately applies to Jesus, the Son of David and greatest king of Israel. Jesus' victory is over the evil powers, and is accomplished at the cross (Acts 2:33-36). Like the kings before him, Jesus has the title of "priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," which allows him to serve as a unique mediating priest between God and people (Hebrews 5-7). Like David, Jesus had rest after his battle was complete (Ps 110:7).

Additional note: The Hasmonean dynasty ruled over Israel from about 140 BC to 37 BC, before being replaced by the Herodian dynasty. The Hasmoneans were neither decendents of David nor Aaron, but they served as both kings and high priests. The last direct descendents of Aaron had died or fled Israel, so there were few options for filling the role of high priest.They justified their priestly role by their descent from a non-Aaronic priestly line and on the concept of the Melchizedekan priesthood. Since they ruled Jerusalem, they reasoned that they could inherit the high priestly role. The application of this priesthood to Jesus in Hebrews was understandable to Jews of the first century, many of whom looked back on the Hasmonean dynasty with some fondness.

The picture: Communion of the Knight, ca. 1250, depicting Melchizedek blessing Abraham, in Notre Dame de Reims. This cathedral was the coronation site for the kings of France, making an interesting connection to Genesis 14 and Ps 110.