Post by David Ben Yosef on Jan 23, 2010 17:28:15 GMT -8
I thought I would post these rules on the forum, since I will be referring to them often while engaging in discussions relating to Scripture. The following has been taken from several web pages in bits and pieces, and therefore is not a copyright enfringement as I understand it. I do not agree with all the interpretations presented, but the rules of interpretation themselves are indeed accurate, and should be learned by any who wishes to accurately interpret the Brit Chadasha.
Both the Tanakh and Brit Chadasha were written by Hebrews for Hebrews and as such employed the method of PaRDeS in all their writings, accounts and revelations. To approach the Set-Apart Scriptures with any other mindset, is to set ones self up for failure, frustration, error and deception. Unlike Christians and others, one cannot choose what method of understanding Scripture they are most familiar or comfortable with. The Creator Himself set certain guidelines and failure to employ this system of PaRDeS, will leave one short of comprehension at best, or in complete error at worst. Now here is where the problem begins and ends. New Testament books such as John and Revelation can only be understood at the deepest level of Sod, for they reveal things kept hidden from the foundation of the world. Major portions of Matthew can only be grasped by drash, allegories, metaphors, and most often by parables, which are part of the drash level of comprehension. Rarely does anything Messianic come out plainly in the literal primary first glance reading. Even the methods that the New Testament uses to quote from and to verify Old Testament Messianic prophetic fulfillment, often is recorded as partial quotes, half quotes, cut and pasted quotes, altered quotes, paraphrased quotes and such. This type of writing style and testimony is enough to drive any literalist crazy. Furthermore this situation is complicated by the fact that sometimes the New Testament quotes the LXX or Septuagint named after the 70 rabbis who translated the Hebrew Tanach in 250 BCE. Sometimes it quotes the Masoretic or traditional Jewish texts of today. Sometimes it quotes neither and sometimes it appears to quote things that are not even found in the literal plain contextual frame in which the Words were first given.
Now what does one do? He or she if they are serious about pursuing HaShem, has no choice but to accept things the way Hebrews always did. And that is that each verse of the Old Testament has at least 4 basic ways of being understood. All 4 basic ways are as legitimate in HaShem’s eyes as the other. Messiah said over and over again in such places as Matthew 13, that His teachings are designed so as to cloak them from the self righteous and hateful and reveal them to those who desire to receive Him. Since HaShem never changes, the Tanach and
are also written in like manner, with Israel having personal knowledge about HaShem considered so esoteric, that no other nation or people had it. ONLY ISRAEL had it. And if one insists that each verse only has a single level of understanding, which is the literal contextual meaning, then one cannot understand the Creator and Revelator at all in either the Tanakh or Brit Chadasha, since the Creator reveals Himself on His terms. One example is Genesis 1:1. In the literal understanding of the text, the Almighty created all things. Period end of story! Simple enough. But is that the ONLY message of Genesis 1:1? Or is it deeper and if it is deeper, how much deeper? Or what does the “literal only” scholar do with Matthew 5:29-30? If we only take that literally, we are left so bewildered and flabbergasted, that in ignorance we cut off our actual legs and arms for Yeshua, since they have both been instruments of sin, at some point in time. Sound absurd? Well here’s something even more absurd. Because folks are not willing to use PaRDeS, the accepted way to interpret all of Hebraic Scripture for 3,500 years, and since most people refuse to go to the extreme of personal limb removal to stop profuse sinfulness, many find it far easier to deny the New Testament and attribute it to fantasy or the crazed sayings of a narcissist Rabbi or ego maniac.
* THE RULES OF PARDES INTERPRETATION *
The four level of interpretation are called: Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sod. The first letter of each word P-R-D-S is taken, and vowels are added for pronunciation, giving the word PARDES (meaning "garden" or "orchard"). Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.
P'shat (pronounced peh-shaht' - meaning "simple")
The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.
Note that within the p'shat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical. The following generic guidelines can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its p'shat:
When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.
When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...
Remez (pronounced reh-mez' - meaning "hint")
This is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling a deeper meaning. There may still be a p'shat meaning as well as another meaning as any verse can have multiple levels of meaning.
An example of implied "REMEZ" Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. The p'shat would be concerned with a merchant using the same scale to weigh goods for all of his customers. The remez implies that this goes beyond this into aspects of fairness and honesty in anyone's life.
D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")
This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.
There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:
A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.
Sod (pronounced sawd or sood [like "wood"] - meaning "hidden")
This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. Some examples of this would be the "dragon," "sleeper of Babylon," and number "666," all from the book of Revelation. Others would include; Yeshua's command in John chapter 6:53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Or Paul's statement in Galatians 4:26, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
EXAMPLES OF PARDES FROM MATTHEW
Examples of the Remez, D'rash and Sod, can be found in Matthew as follows. (Of course the p'shat is throughout the text.) Without knowledge and application of the rules of PARDES, these verses would either not make sense or indicate an error on the part of the author:
Remez
Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 that Matthew is applying to Yeshua. If we were to insist on a literal exegesis only and researched the quote, we would have to accuse Matthew of improperly using Scripture, as Hosea is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel, and not the Messiah. Matthew however, is hinting (remez) at the relationship between Israel and the Messiah, in this and other verses he uses.
D'rash
Matthew 18:18 - "... Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" This is a verse that has been interpreted in numerous (incorrect) ways due to a lack of understanding that this a d'rash (teaching) concerning decisions one makes in their personal "walk with God" (called your "halakha" in Hebrew/Judaism).
Sod
Matthew 26:28 - "Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, This is my blood ..." Taken literally this verse verse would not only be a violation of the commandment against consuming blood, but along with other verses about eating Yeshua's flesh (John 6:51-56), could be grounds for accusations of cannibalism. There is a far deeper, more mystical meaning here however (the sod), even one that those who heard Him did not understand (John 6:52).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL *
The Seven Rules of Hillel existed long before Rabbi Hillel (60 BCE – 20 CE?), but he was the first to write them down. The rules are so old we see them used in the Tenach (Old Testament).
Rabbis Hillel and Shamai were competitive leading figures in Judaism during the days of Yeshua's youth. Hillel was known for teaching the Spirit of the Law and Shamai was known for teaching the letter of the Law. Yeshua's teaching largely followed that of the School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai (an exception being Yeshua agreeing with Shamai regarding divorce in Matthew 19:9).
For example, Yeshua's famous "golden rule": Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)
This reads very closely with Hillel's famous statement: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor that is the whole ... (b.Shabbat 31a)
Upon Hillel's death the mantle of the School of Hillel was passed to his son Simeon. Upon Simon's death the mantle of the school of Hillel passed to Gamliel. This Gamilel spoke in defense of the early Nazarenes (Acts 5:34-39). He was the teacher of Shaul/Paul (Acts 22:3).
In 2 Tim. 2:15, Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the word of truth." What did Paul mean by this? Was he saying that there were right and wrong ways to interpret the scriptures? Did Paul believe there were actual rules to be followed when interpreting (understanding) the Scriptures? Was Paul speaking of the Seven Rules of Hillel?
Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of truth."
The Seven Rules of Hillel are:
1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)
The Kal vahomer rule says that what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case. A kal vahomer argument is often, but not always, signaled by a phrase like "how much more..."
The Rabbinical writers recognize two forms ok kal vahomer:
There are several examples of kal vahomer in the Tenach.
For example: Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner. (Proverbs 11:31)
And: If you have run with footmen and they have wearied you, then how can you contend with horses? (Jerermiah 12:5a)
Other Tenach examples to look at: Deuteronomy 31:27; 1 Samuel 23:3; Jerermiah 12:5b; Ezekiel 15:5; Esther 9:12
There are several examples of kal vahomer in the New Testament. Yeshua often uses this form of argument.
For example: If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? (Jn. 7:23)
And: What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. (Mt. 12:11-12)
Other examples of Yeshua's usage of kal vahomer are: Matthew 6:26, 30 = Luke 12:24, 28; Mathhew 7:11 = Luke 11:13; Matthew 10:25 & John 15:18-20; Matthew 12:12 & John 7:23
Paul especially used kal vahomer. Examples include: Romans 5:8-9, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24; 1 Corinthians 9:11-12; 12:22; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9, 11; Philippians 2:12; Philemon 1:16; Hebrews 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:9, 25.
2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expresions)
An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root – i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.
Tenakh example: By comparing 1 Samuel 1:10 to Judges 13:5 using the phrase "no razor shall touch his head" we may conlude that Samuel, like Samson, was a nazarite.
"New Testament" example: In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Psalms 95:7-11 = Hebrews 3:7-11 to Genesis 2:2 = Hebrews 4:4 based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is literally "the day"). Paul uses this exogesis to conclude that there will be 6,000 years of this world followed by a 1,000 year Shabbat.
3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building up a "family" from a single text)
A principle is found in several passages: A consideration found in one of them applies to all.
Hebrews 9:11-22 applies "blood" from Exodus 24:8=Hebrews 9:20 to Jerermiah 31:31-34
4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building up a "family" from two or more texts)
A principle is established by relating two texts together: The principle can then be applied to other passages. i.e:
You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or quantity. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:35-36)
By use of the fourth rule of Hillel we can recognize that the provision of equals weights and measures applies also to how we judge others and their actions.
In Hebrews 1:5-14, Paul sites the following to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than angels:
Psalms 2:7 = Hebrews 1:5
2 Samuel 7:14 = Hebrews 1:5
Deuteronomy 32:43/Psalms 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Hebrews 1:6
Psalms 104:4 = Hebrews 1:7
Psalms 45:6-7 = Hebrews 1:8-9
Psalms 102:25-27 = Hebrews 1:10-12
Psalms 110:1 = Hebrews 1:13
Binyan ab mikathub echad and Binyab ab mishene kethubim are especially useful in identifying biblical principles and applying them to real life situations. In this way Scripture is recontextualized so that it remains relevant for all generations.
5. Kelal uferat (The general and the particular)
A general principle may be restricted by a particularization of it in another verse – or, conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle. A Tenach example: Genesis 1:27 makes the general statement that God created man. Genesis 2:7, 21 particularizes this by giving the details of the creation of Adam and Chava (Eve). Other examples would be verses detailing with how to perform sacrifices or how to keep the feasts. In the Gospels, the principle of divorce being allowed for "uncleanliness," is particularized to mean for sexual immorality only.
6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (Analogy made from another passage)
Two passages may seem to conflict until compared with a third, which has points of general though not necessarily verbal similarity. Tenach examples:
Leviticus 1:1 "out of the tent of meeting" and Exodus 25:22 "from above the ark of the covenant between the chrubim" seem to disagree until we examine Num. 7:89 where we learn that Moses entered the tent of meeting to hear YHWH speaking from between the cherubim.
1 Chronicles 27:1 explained the numerical disagreement between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5.
Exodus 19:20 "YHWH came down upon Mount Sinai" seems to disagree with Deuteronomy 4:36, "Out of Heaven He let you hear His voice." Exodus 20:19 (20:22 in some editions) reconciles the two by telling us that God brought the heavens down to the mount and spoke. (m.Sifra 1:7)
An example from Romans: Paul shows that the following Tenach passages SEEM to conflict:
The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17 = Habakkuk 2:4) with There is none righteous, no, not one ... (Romans 3:10 = Psalms 14:1-3= Psalms 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20). Paul does the same here: [G-d] will render to each one according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6 = Psalms 62:12; Proverbs 24:12) with Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man whom YHWH shall not impute sin. (Romans 4:7-8 = Psalms 32:1-2)
Paul resolves the apparent conflict by citing Genensis 15:6 (in Romans 4:3, 22): Abraham believed G-d, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Thus Paul resolves the apparent conflict by showing that under certain circumstances, belief/faith/trust (same word in Hebrew) can act as a substitute for righteousness/being just (same word in Hebrew).
7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context)
The total context, not just the isolated statement must be considered for an accurate exegesis. An example would be Romans 14:1, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Yeshua that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Paul is not abrogating the kosher laws, but pointing out to gentile believers in the congregation at Rome (within his larger context of Romans) that: 1) things are unclean not of themselves but because God said they are unclean, and 2) they must remember the higher principle, that their "freedom to eat what is unclean" is secondary to the salvation of unsaved Jews who are observing their behavior, as they are looking for "gentiles coming into the faith of Israel" to be acting in an "appropriate manner" as a truth test of Paul’s ministry (and Yeshua’s Messiahship).
Both the Tanakh and Brit Chadasha were written by Hebrews for Hebrews and as such employed the method of PaRDeS in all their writings, accounts and revelations. To approach the Set-Apart Scriptures with any other mindset, is to set ones self up for failure, frustration, error and deception. Unlike Christians and others, one cannot choose what method of understanding Scripture they are most familiar or comfortable with. The Creator Himself set certain guidelines and failure to employ this system of PaRDeS, will leave one short of comprehension at best, or in complete error at worst. Now here is where the problem begins and ends. New Testament books such as John and Revelation can only be understood at the deepest level of Sod, for they reveal things kept hidden from the foundation of the world. Major portions of Matthew can only be grasped by drash, allegories, metaphors, and most often by parables, which are part of the drash level of comprehension. Rarely does anything Messianic come out plainly in the literal primary first glance reading. Even the methods that the New Testament uses to quote from and to verify Old Testament Messianic prophetic fulfillment, often is recorded as partial quotes, half quotes, cut and pasted quotes, altered quotes, paraphrased quotes and such. This type of writing style and testimony is enough to drive any literalist crazy. Furthermore this situation is complicated by the fact that sometimes the New Testament quotes the LXX or Septuagint named after the 70 rabbis who translated the Hebrew Tanach in 250 BCE. Sometimes it quotes the Masoretic or traditional Jewish texts of today. Sometimes it quotes neither and sometimes it appears to quote things that are not even found in the literal plain contextual frame in which the Words were first given.
Now what does one do? He or she if they are serious about pursuing HaShem, has no choice but to accept things the way Hebrews always did. And that is that each verse of the Old Testament has at least 4 basic ways of being understood. All 4 basic ways are as legitimate in HaShem’s eyes as the other. Messiah said over and over again in such places as Matthew 13, that His teachings are designed so as to cloak them from the self righteous and hateful and reveal them to those who desire to receive Him. Since HaShem never changes, the Tanach and
are also written in like manner, with Israel having personal knowledge about HaShem considered so esoteric, that no other nation or people had it. ONLY ISRAEL had it. And if one insists that each verse only has a single level of understanding, which is the literal contextual meaning, then one cannot understand the Creator and Revelator at all in either the Tanakh or Brit Chadasha, since the Creator reveals Himself on His terms. One example is Genesis 1:1. In the literal understanding of the text, the Almighty created all things. Period end of story! Simple enough. But is that the ONLY message of Genesis 1:1? Or is it deeper and if it is deeper, how much deeper? Or what does the “literal only” scholar do with Matthew 5:29-30? If we only take that literally, we are left so bewildered and flabbergasted, that in ignorance we cut off our actual legs and arms for Yeshua, since they have both been instruments of sin, at some point in time. Sound absurd? Well here’s something even more absurd. Because folks are not willing to use PaRDeS, the accepted way to interpret all of Hebraic Scripture for 3,500 years, and since most people refuse to go to the extreme of personal limb removal to stop profuse sinfulness, many find it far easier to deny the New Testament and attribute it to fantasy or the crazed sayings of a narcissist Rabbi or ego maniac.* THE RULES OF PARDES INTERPRETATION *
The four level of interpretation are called: Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sod. The first letter of each word P-R-D-S is taken, and vowels are added for pronunciation, giving the word PARDES (meaning "garden" or "orchard"). Each layer is deeper and more intense than the last, like the layers of an onion.
P'shat (pronounced peh-shaht' - meaning "simple")
The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text. The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context. The p'shat is the keystone of Scripture understanding. If we discard the p'shat we lose any real chance of an accurate understanding and we are no longer objectively deriving meaning from the Scriptures (exegesis), but subjectively reading meaning into the scriptures (eisogesis). The Talmud states that no passage loses its p'shat:
Talmud Shabbat 63a - Rabbi Kahana objected to Mar son of Rabbi Huna: But this refers to the words of the
? A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, he replied.Note that within the p'shat you can find several types of language, including figurative, symbolic and allegorical. The following generic guidelines can be used to determine if a passage is figurative and therefore figurative even in its p'shat:
When an inanimate object is used to describe a living being, the statement is figurative. Example: Isaiah 5:7 - For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant; and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.
When life and action are attributed to an inanimate object the statement is figurative. Example: Zechariah 5:1-3 - Then I turned, and lifted up my eyes, and looked, and behold a flying scroll. And he said to me, What do you see? And I answered, I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its width ten cubits. And he said to me, This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole earth; for everyone who steals shall be cut off henceforth, according to it; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off henceforth, according to it.
When an expression is out of character with the thing described, the statement is figurative. Example: Psalm 17:8 - Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of your wings ...
Remez (pronounced reh-mez' - meaning "hint")
This is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling a deeper meaning. There may still be a p'shat meaning as well as another meaning as any verse can have multiple levels of meaning.
An example of implied "REMEZ" Proverbs 20:10 - Different weights, and different measures, both of them are alike an abomination to the Lord. The p'shat would be concerned with a merchant using the same scale to weigh goods for all of his customers. The remez implies that this goes beyond this into aspects of fairness and honesty in anyone's life.
D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")
This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.
There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:
A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.
Sod (pronounced sawd or sood [like "wood"] - meaning "hidden")
This understanding is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text. Some examples of this would be the "dragon," "sleeper of Babylon," and number "666," all from the book of Revelation. Others would include; Yeshua's command in John chapter 6:53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Or Paul's statement in Galatians 4:26, "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
EXAMPLES OF PARDES FROM MATTHEW
Examples of the Remez, D'rash and Sod, can be found in Matthew as follows. (Of course the p'shat is throughout the text.) Without knowledge and application of the rules of PARDES, these verses would either not make sense or indicate an error on the part of the author:
Remez
Matthew 2:15 - "Out of Egypt I called my son." This is a quote from Hosea 11:1 that Matthew is applying to Yeshua. If we were to insist on a literal exegesis only and researched the quote, we would have to accuse Matthew of improperly using Scripture, as Hosea is clearly speaking of the nation of Israel, and not the Messiah. Matthew however, is hinting (remez) at the relationship between Israel and the Messiah, in this and other verses he uses.
D'rash
Matthew 18:18 - "... Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" This is a verse that has been interpreted in numerous (incorrect) ways due to a lack of understanding that this a d'rash (teaching) concerning decisions one makes in their personal "walk with God" (called your "halakha" in Hebrew/Judaism).
Sod
Matthew 26:28 - "Then He took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them saying, Drink from it all of you, This is my blood ..." Taken literally this verse verse would not only be a violation of the
commandment against consuming blood, but along with other verses about eating Yeshua's flesh (John 6:51-56), could be grounds for accusations of cannibalism. There is a far deeper, more mystical meaning here however (the sod), even one that those who heard Him did not understand (John 6:52). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL *
The Seven Rules of Hillel existed long before Rabbi Hillel (60 BCE – 20 CE?), but he was the first to write them down. The rules are so old we see them used in the Tenach (Old Testament).
Rabbis Hillel and Shamai were competitive leading figures in Judaism during the days of Yeshua's youth. Hillel was known for teaching the Spirit of the Law and Shamai was known for teaching the letter of the Law. Yeshua's teaching largely followed that of the School of Hillel rather than that of the School of Shamai (an exception being Yeshua agreeing with Shamai regarding divorce in Matthew 19:9).
For example, Yeshua's famous "golden rule": Whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even to them, for this is the
and the Prophets. (Matthew 7:12)This reads very closely with Hillel's famous statement: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor that is the whole
... (b.Shabbat 31a)Upon Hillel's death the mantle of the School of Hillel was passed to his son Simeon. Upon Simon's death the mantle of the school of Hillel passed to Gamliel. This Gamilel spoke in defense of the early Nazarenes (Acts 5:34-39). He was the teacher of Shaul/Paul (Acts 22:3).
In 2 Tim. 2:15, Paul speaks of "rightly dividing the word of truth." What did Paul mean by this? Was he saying that there were right and wrong ways to interpret the scriptures? Did Paul believe there were actual rules to be followed when interpreting (understanding) the Scriptures? Was Paul speaking of the Seven Rules of Hillel?
Paul was certainly taught these rules in the School of Hillel by Hillel's own grandson Gamliel. When we examine Paul's writings we will see that they are filled with usages of Hillel's Seven Rules (several examples appear below). It would appear then that the Seven Rules of Hillel are at least part of what Paul was speaking of when he spoke of "rightly dividing the Word of truth."
The Seven Rules of Hillel are:
1. Kal Vahomer (Light and heavy)
The Kal vahomer rule says that what applies in a less important case will certainly apply in a more important case. A kal vahomer argument is often, but not always, signaled by a phrase like "how much more..."
The Rabbinical writers recognize two forms ok kal vahomer:
- kal vahomer meforash - In this form the kal vahomer argument appears explicitly.
- kal vahomer satum - In which the kal vahomer argument is only implied.
There are several examples of kal vahomer in the Tenach.
For example: Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner. (Proverbs 11:31)
And: If you have run with footmen and they have wearied you, then how can you contend with horses? (Jerermiah 12:5a)
Other Tenach examples to look at: Deuteronomy 31:27; 1 Samuel 23:3; Jerermiah 12:5b; Ezekiel 15:5; Esther 9:12
There are several examples of kal vahomer in the New Testament. Yeshua often uses this form of argument.
For example: If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the Law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? (Jn. 7:23)
And: What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. (Mt. 12:11-12)
Other examples of Yeshua's usage of kal vahomer are: Matthew 6:26, 30 = Luke 12:24, 28; Mathhew 7:11 = Luke 11:13; Matthew 10:25 & John 15:18-20; Matthew 12:12 & John 7:23
Paul especially used kal vahomer. Examples include: Romans 5:8-9, 10, 15, 17; 11:12, 24; 1 Corinthians 9:11-12; 12:22; 2 Corinthians 3:7-9, 11; Philippians 2:12; Philemon 1:16; Hebrews 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 10:28-29; 12:9, 25.
2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expresions)
An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root – i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.
Tenakh example: By comparing 1 Samuel 1:10 to Judges 13:5 using the phrase "no razor shall touch his head" we may conlude that Samuel, like Samson, was a nazarite.
"New Testament" example: In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Psalms 95:7-11 = Hebrews 3:7-11 to Genesis 2:2 = Hebrews 4:4 based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is literally "the day"). Paul uses this exogesis to conclude that there will be 6,000 years of this world followed by a 1,000 year Shabbat.
3. Binyan ab mikathub echad (Building up a "family" from a single text)
A principle is found in several passages: A consideration found in one of them applies to all.
Hebrews 9:11-22 applies "blood" from Exodus 24:8=Hebrews 9:20 to Jerermiah 31:31-34
4. Binyab ab mishene kethubim (Building up a "family" from two or more texts)
A principle is established by relating two texts together: The principle can then be applied to other passages. i.e:
You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measures of length, of weight, or quantity. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:35-36)
By use of the fourth rule of Hillel we can recognize that the provision of equals weights and measures applies also to how we judge others and their actions.
In Hebrews 1:5-14, Paul sites the following to build a rule that the Messiah is of a higher order than angels:
Psalms 2:7 = Hebrews 1:5
2 Samuel 7:14 = Hebrews 1:5
Deuteronomy 32:43/Psalms 97:7/(Neh. 9:6) = Hebrews 1:6
Psalms 104:4 = Hebrews 1:7
Psalms 45:6-7 = Hebrews 1:8-9
Psalms 102:25-27 = Hebrews 1:10-12
Psalms 110:1 = Hebrews 1:13
Binyan ab mikathub echad and Binyab ab mishene kethubim are especially useful in identifying biblical principles and applying them to real life situations. In this way Scripture is recontextualized so that it remains relevant for all generations.
5. Kelal uferat (The general and the particular)
A general principle may be restricted by a particularization of it in another verse – or, conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle. A Tenach example: Genesis 1:27 makes the general statement that God created man. Genesis 2:7, 21 particularizes this by giving the details of the creation of Adam and Chava (Eve). Other examples would be verses detailing with how to perform sacrifices or how to keep the feasts. In the Gospels, the principle of divorce being allowed for "uncleanliness," is particularized to mean for sexual immorality only.
6. Kayotze bo mimekom akhar (Analogy made from another passage)
Two passages may seem to conflict until compared with a third, which has points of general though not necessarily verbal similarity. Tenach examples:
Leviticus 1:1 "out of the tent of meeting" and Exodus 25:22 "from above the ark of the covenant between the chrubim" seem to disagree until we examine Num. 7:89 where we learn that Moses entered the tent of meeting to hear YHWH speaking from between the cherubim.
1 Chronicles 27:1 explained the numerical disagreement between 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5.
Exodus 19:20 "YHWH came down upon Mount Sinai" seems to disagree with Deuteronomy 4:36, "Out of Heaven He let you hear His voice." Exodus 20:19 (20:22 in some editions) reconciles the two by telling us that God brought the heavens down to the mount and spoke. (m.Sifra 1:7)
An example from Romans: Paul shows that the following Tenach passages SEEM to conflict:
The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:17 = Habakkuk 2:4) with There is none righteous, no, not one ... (Romans 3:10 = Psalms 14:1-3= Psalms 53:1-3; Ecclesiastes 7:20). Paul does the same here: [G-d] will render to each one according to his deeds. (Romans 2:6 = Psalms 62:12; Proverbs 24:12) with Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man whom YHWH shall not impute sin. (Romans 4:7-8 = Psalms 32:1-2)
Paul resolves the apparent conflict by citing Genensis 15:6 (in Romans 4:3, 22): Abraham believed G-d, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Thus Paul resolves the apparent conflict by showing that under certain circumstances, belief/faith/trust (same word in Hebrew) can act as a substitute for righteousness/being just (same word in Hebrew).
7. Davar hilmad me'anino (Explanation obtained from context)
The total context, not just the isolated statement must be considered for an accurate exegesis. An example would be Romans 14:1, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Yeshua that nothing is unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Paul is not abrogating the kosher laws, but pointing out to gentile believers in the congregation at Rome (within his larger context of Romans) that: 1) things are unclean not of themselves but because God said they are unclean, and 2) they must remember the higher principle, that their "freedom to eat what is unclean" is secondary to the salvation of unsaved Jews who are observing their behavior, as they are looking for "gentiles coming into the faith of Israel" to be acting in an "appropriate manner" as a truth test of Paul’s ministry (and Yeshua’s Messiahship).
) that for all its' faults, Christianity did evangelize the world. That is a good explanation of how it might have been possible. As to the translational errors (of the Kethuvai Shelachim, not the LXX), it's as I have said here before, the truth is still there if we are just willing to search it out.
