Free eBook “What Think Ye of Christ?”

What I am about to share is bound to be controversial, but I’m going to share it anyway. The rule of Equivalent Expressions may give us a clue as to the identity of the Two Witnesses in the book of Revelation. How is that, you ask? Look and see…

The Two Witnesses

I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” These are the two olive trees and the two menorahs, standing before the Lord of the earth. If anyone desires to harm them, fire proceeds out of their mouth and devours their enemies. If anyone desires to harm them, he must be killed in this way. These have the power to shut up the sky, that it may not rain during the days of their prophecy. They have power over the waters, to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. —Revelation 11:3–6 (WEB:ME)

Notice the words, “These have the power to shut up the sky, that it may not rain… They have power over the waters, to turn them into blood…” if this sounds familiar, that’s because it should! What two Hebrew prophets are recorded causing drought and turning water into blood? Let me help you:

Elijah Prophesying a Drought

Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the foreigners of Gilead, said to Ahab, “As the LORD, the God of Israel, lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.” —1 Kings 17:1 (WEB:ME)

Moses Turning Water into Blood

“It will happen, if they will neither believe you nor listen to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. It will happen, if they will not believe even these two signs, neither listen to your voice, that you shall take of the water of the river, and pour it on the dry land. The water which you take out of the river will become blood on the dry land.” —Exodus 4:8–9 (WEB:ME)

Moses, Elijah, and Equivalent Expressions

Now, I think you can clearly see where I’m going with this: Moses and Elijah used the same kinds of miracles in their ministries as the Two Witnesses do. As a result, I tend to side with those who identify the Two Witnesses of Revelation as Moses and Elijah.

The Detractor’s View

Now, to be fair, I’ve taken some heat for this position, based on a passage out of Hebrews:

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment —Hebrews 9:27 (WEB:ME)

Detractors put forward that this may be Elijah (because he never died, but was taken up to heaven) but this cannot be Moses, because he did die. Additionally, Enoch is cited as the most probable second witness because, like Elijah, he too never died. While these are all good points, and therefore fertile ground for good debate, I still think that Moses and Elijah are more likely candidates for the Two Witnesses.

One Last Point

Now, this brings me to another point: these rules are wonderful tools, but that’s all they are—tools. They can be applied properly or improperly, soundly or errantly. Always remember that at no point do these take away human reason or divinely granted insight. Learn to use them, enjoy the insights they give you, but do not make them a strait-jacket.

Come back soon for the Third Rule of Hillel: Building up a “Family” from One Text.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel

I told you in my previous post that the one of the wonderful things about the rule of Equivalent Expressions is that it demonstrates the interconnected nature of the Scriptures. I find it interesting when there are strong connections by means of Equivalent Expression between books of the Bible which where written at far different times. Perhaps one of the most insightful connections I can give is an example between the book of Numbers and the book of Revelation.

The Offering of a Jealous Husband

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the children of Israel, and tell them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray, and is unfaithful to him, and a man lies with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and is kept close, and she is defiled, and there is no witness against her, and she isn’t taken in the act; and the spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, and she is defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy comes on him, and he is jealous of his wife, and she isn’t defiled: then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring her offering for her: the tenth part of an efah of barley meal. He shall pour no oil on it, nor put frankincense on it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to memory. The priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD; and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the meal offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal offering of jealousy. The priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that brings a curse. The priest shall cause her to swear, and shall tell the woman, “If no man has lain with you, and if you haven’t gone aside to uncleanness, being under your husband, be free from this water of bitterness that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray, being under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you besides your husband:” then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall tell the woman, “The LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD allows your thigh to fall away, and your body to swell; and this water that brings a curse will go into your bowels, and make your body swell, and your thigh fall away.” The woman shall say, “Amen, Amen.”

“‘The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. He shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causes the curse; and the water that causes the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. The priest shall take the meal offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal offering before the LORD, and bring it to the altar. The priest shall take a handful of the meal offering, as its memorial, and burn it on the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water. When he has made her drink the water, then it shall happen, if she is defiled, and has committed a trespass against her husband, that the water that causes the curse will enter into her and become bitter, and her body will swell, and her thigh will fall away: and the woman will be a curse among her people. If the woman isn’t defiled, but is clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. —Numbers 5:11–28 (WEB:ME)

The Star “Wormwood”

Something truly interesting happens when a comparison is made between this passage, with it’s use of the expression “water bitterness,” and a similar expression used in the book of Revelation.

The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from the sky, burning like a torch, and it fell on one third of the rivers, and on the springs of the waters. The name of the star is called “Wormwood.” One third of the waters became wormwood. Many people died from the waters, because they were made bitter. —Revelation 8:10–11 (WEB:ME)

Putting it all Together

Lets consider these two dissimilar passages in the light of the rule of Equivalence of Expressions:

Here we have the third Shofar (Trumpet) judgment where a star called “Wormwood” falls to earth and makes water bitter. (In many ancient languages, including Hebrew, “star” is used loosely to mean any luminous celestial body.) It seems reasonable then to conclude that this judgment occurs due to widespread infidelity. Among the world population at the time. Additionally, it seems reasonable that because God frequently views idolatry as being on equal footing with infidelity it further seems likely that this is a problem also. This conclusion seems further reinforced by references to both idolatry and sexual immorality throughout the book of Revelation.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel

One of the wonderful things about the Scriptures which is often hidden from the view many Bible students its wonderful interconnectedness. In our busy day-to-day lives we often neglect our spiritual responsibility to pray and to study the scriptures. Due to the constraints on our time, we often study small passages alone or in groups. This, as much as anything else causes us to think of scripture in discrete chunks: a verse here, a short easy to remember passage there, and so on. But the Scriptures where not meant to be read that way!

There is, among the ancient sages, a rule called “G’zerah Shavah” meaning “a comparison of equals,” or “an equivalent expression.” This ancient rule is best defined follows: Where a similar phrase, word, or root is applied in two different passages, the  connotations of its use remains the same.

An example that gets used a lot to illustrate this, as it is such a good example of this rule in play, is a comparison of the following passages:

The angel of the LORD appeared to the woman, and said to her, “See now, you are barren, and don’t bear; but you shall conceive, and bear a son.  Now therefore please beware and drink no wine nor strong drink, and don’t eat any unclean thing: for, behold, you shall conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb: and he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.” —Judges 13:3–5 (WEB:ME)

This passage, of course refers to the birth of Samson, the ancient Judge of Israel famous for his mighty works… and his bad luck with women. We see that he is a Nazirite and, as such, “no razor shall come on his head”.

But this is not the only place in scripture we read this phrase.

So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his seat by the doorpost of the LORD’s temple. She was in bitterness of soul, and prayed to the LORD, and wept bitterly. She vowed a vow, and said, “The LORD of Hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget your handmaid, but will give to your handmaid a boy, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall come on his head.” —I Samuel 1:9–11 (WEB:ME)

Here, we see the same expression “no razor shall come on his head.” This tells us that Samuel, like Samson was a Nazirite from birth.

The Hillel’s Second Rule is both a wonderful tool for understanding the Scriptures, and a wonderful reminder of the interconnected nature of the message God has given us. It is good for all of us to ask ourselves “where have I heard this before?” as we read the scriptures. The more of the scriptures with which we become familiar, the more insight this rule can give us.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel

Yeshua (Jesus) used Light and Heavy argumentation many times. Interestingly, the ancient sages taught that two forms of Light and Heavy argument exist. In some cases the argument is explicit, clear, and inescapably obvious. In other cases, the Light and Heavy argumentation is only implied.

Explicit Light and Heavy (Kal Vahomer Meforash)

Yeshua taught using the explicit form of Light and Heavy argumentation:

Or who is there among you, who, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, who will give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! —Matthew 7:9–11 (WEB)

Here we see the Master making a clear Light and Heavy argument. Sinful human beings give good gifts to their children, even though they are by nature evil. This is “Light” in comparison to the good gifts which God gives to those who ask him. God’s goodness is Heavy by comparison to the Light goodness of fallen humanity.

Implicit Light and Heavy (Kal Vahomer Satum)

Here also the Master taught using the implicit form of Light and Heavy argumentation:

Jesus answered them, “I did one work, and you all marvel because of it. Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a boy.  If a boy receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me, because I made a man completely healthy on the Sabbath? —John 7:21–7:23 (WEB)

Here we see though the expression “how much more…” is not used, there is still a Light and Heavy argument being expressed. The Master tells us that the commandment of circumcision is to occur even on the Sabbath. That the Sabbath can be violated without guilt to keep the commandment of circumcision is really saying something—malicious desecration of the Sabbath is subject to the death penalty under Sanhedrin jurisprudence. Yeshua then declares that because the commandment of circumcision is more important than the Sabbath, so too is miraculous healing of the sick and infirm of greater importance than Sabbath observance.

At first, this seems like strange logic: what connection could circumcision possibly have with the healing of the sick? I had a hard time seeing the connection myself, but after some research, I hit pay-dirt from the Babylonian Talmud:

“Rabbi El’azar answered ‘If circumcision, which involves only one of the 248 parts of the human body, suspends Shabbat, how much more must [saving] the whole body suspend Shabbat!’”
—Yoma 85b

This passage from the Talmud records Jewish thinking on circumcision, healing, and the Sabbath in a manner that seems to shed light on the kind of logic Yeshua used. Here it seems that the Light part of the argument is keeping the commandment circumcision in that it involves only one part of the body: the removal of the foreskin of the penis. However, healing an ailing human-being is Heavy by comparison because it involves the entire body, not just a single part of it.

And here we have both kinds of Light and Heavy argument: explicit and implicit, taken from the teachings of the Master Yeshua. Next, we’ll examine yet another interesting ancient rule for understanding the Bible: Equivalence of Expressions.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel

The medieval French Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) held that there where ten Light and Heavy arguments in the Hebrew Scriptures. For those of you who where curious as to their location, you’re in luck:

Torah

Genesis 44:8
Exodus 6:12
Numbers 12:14
Deuteronomy 31:27

Prophets

I Samuel 23:3
Jeremiah 12:5 (the passage contains 2 arguments)
Ezekiel 15:5

Writings

Proverbs 11:31
Esther 9:12

Unfortunately, at this time there does not appear to be a good list of this kind of argumentation in the Apostolic Scriptures (NT). I did some digging for a good book on the subject (as I love good books!) a while back and came up empty handed. If anyone knows of a good book on the subject of  the use of ancient Jewish hermeneutics within the New Testament cannon,  I’d be interested in reading it.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel

With the explosion of Bible translations (some of which are better than others) and the rise in truly wonderful tools to use in the course of the study of the Scriptures it seems that we must know more about the Bible than ever before. While it’s true that we have information that those who came before us did not (modern archaeology in general, and Dead Sea Scrolls a bit more specifically, for example) few genuine students of the scripture can escape the sinking feeling deep inside their guts: “You’ve lost something” it whispers. And you know what, it’s right. We absolutely have. In fact, we’ve lost a lot of things.

Though the way we study scripture has seen its advances from, say, the Protestant Reformation, the Sages of the dim and ancient past have much to say about how to interpret Scriptures. Interestingly, both the Master Yeshua (Jesus) and Rabbi Saul (Paul of Tarsus) used these truly ancient methods for interpreting Scripture. And, while there is surely some crossover in methodology, many of these methods have been forgotten outright.

A Birds-Eye View of Hillel

Though much could be written about the great sage Hillel, what’s important to know before going forward is this:

• Hillel lived in the generation which preceded Yeshua, and likely died while the Master was yet a child.
• Hillel was one of the greatest Torah teachers of his day. Together with his chief rival Shammai they formed two great theological “houses” which had many adherents within various movements of Judaism of at the time.
• Hillel did not create the rules which bear his name, they are ancient beyond recall. The Torah even uses a few of these rules on itself!
• He was the grandfather of Gamliel (the Elder) who later became the Torah teacher of Saul/Paul.

The First Rule of Hillel: Light and Heavy (Kal Vahomer)

The First Rule states that if “something” (light) is true in some small way, and you have a greater (heavy) example of that “something” than it is even more true in the latter case.

For logic nuts, the argument looks like this:

IF A is TRUE of B THEN how much more is C.

This kind of reasoning may not make sense until you see it in action. Jesus said:

See the birds of the sky, that they don’t sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you of much more value than they? —Matthew 6:26 (WEB)

And, Rabbi Saul (Paul) said:

For if you were cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more will these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? —Romans 11:24 (WEB)

As you can see the Master took something which had a fair amount of value to God, birds, and contrasted it with the greater value of human life. In the case of Saul/Paul speaking of Israel’s future salvation in the Messiah uses a “Light and Heavy” argument to to argue “how much more” God will bring Israel into covenant with Him via Yeshua at the appointed time. This is “Light and Heavy” argumentation in a nutshell.

Tags: hermeneutics, sages, seven rules of hillel