Dr. Couch, you seem to have a lot of books on the Hebrew language and Hebrew studies. I find few who can translate the language and who understand the grammar of this subject.
ANSWER: You are right. Almost none in my graduate classes continue studying Hebrew. I have some of the most important grammar books and commentaries on Hebrew. I translate several verses each week because I think both Hebrew and Greek is important if I am going to be an engineer of the Scriptures! The books I possess you can hardly find today. I am blessed with a great language library.
I spent three years studying graduate Hebrew with the outstanding scholar, Dr. Merrill F. Unger. What a blessed man! My class went through the book of Zechariah in Hebrew with him. I sat on the front row in order to get all I could from his mind and his heart. I never gave up on his instruction, as many of my classmates did.
Remember, the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT, is indeed the Word of God! It is a blessed privilege to study the Bible in the original languages! Why any student would throw away all the effort of such study, I cannot figure out. More and more, students are giving up on theology and the biblical languages. Such efforts are disappearing. More and more are throwing in the towels on wanting to know the Scriptures. This is a part of the sign of the approaching apostasy taking over our churches and our seminaries.
—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)
Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hebrew. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Hebrew Language and Studies
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Hebrew Massoretic Text
Dr. Couch, is the Hebrew Massoretic text reliable?
ANSWER: Yes indeed, it certainly is. The ancient Rabbis were very careful to copy and transmit the Old Testament text with great accuracy. If they made copying mistakes they started all over again in order to make sure that no mistakes were allowed to sneak into the new copied work.
The Hebrew scribes of the earliest times take care to be accurate. The work was transferred over to the Talmudic Rabbis from 200-500 AD with continual guarantees that what they copied was not compromised. Jewish scholarship emigrated eastward to Babylon in the second century through the tenth century to make sure that scholarly traditions were maintained in keeping the Old Testament copies accurate. With certainty the Babylonian variants were listed in the R. Kittel edition known as the "Biblia Hebraica" (1929-1937).
In graduate school I cut my teeth on the Kittel edition. There has been almost no question on the Kittel version. Unger writes: "The Massoretes manifested the same spirit of deep loyalty and devotion to the Sacred Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which had been handed down to them, that had been characteristic throughout the centuries of the history of the nation chosen to be the recipients and the custodians of the Bible."
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)
ANSWER: Yes indeed, it certainly is. The ancient Rabbis were very careful to copy and transmit the Old Testament text with great accuracy. If they made copying mistakes they started all over again in order to make sure that no mistakes were allowed to sneak into the new copied work.
The Hebrew scribes of the earliest times take care to be accurate. The work was transferred over to the Talmudic Rabbis from 200-500 AD with continual guarantees that what they copied was not compromised. Jewish scholarship emigrated eastward to Babylon in the second century through the tenth century to make sure that scholarly traditions were maintained in keeping the Old Testament copies accurate. With certainty the Babylonian variants were listed in the R. Kittel edition known as the "Biblia Hebraica" (1929-1937).
In graduate school I cut my teeth on the Kittel edition. There has been almost no question on the Kittel version. Unger writes: "The Massoretes manifested the same spirit of deep loyalty and devotion to the Sacred Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God, which had been handed down to them, that had been characteristic throughout the centuries of the history of the nation chosen to be the recipients and the custodians of the Bible."
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (8/11)
Labels:
Biblical languages,
Hebrew,
Hebrew Massoretic,
Rabbis,
scribes
Friday, June 24, 2011
Nephilim
Dr. Couch, I still hear Bible teachers saying that the Nephilim in Genesis 6 were a mixture between humans and fallen angels, thus creating a hybrid of strange creatures that were unusual being in early Genesis. What do you think?
ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.
By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.
I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:
"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'
This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"
All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!
The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:
"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."
There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)
ANSWER: For years I have studied these verses from the Hebrew text and am convinced that they are not referring to fallen angels! What is happening is that the two lines, the Godly and the unGodly lines of Seth and Cain, were coming together, by which the line of humans was weakened and degraded, becoming even more sinful.
By good exegesis, and reading carefully chapters 4-6, this view seems to make the most sense. While there are some Bible teachers who hold to the "angel" theory, the outstanding scholars I read hold to the fact that the two lines of Seth and Cain come together, washing down morally and spiritually the Godly line.
I just discovered the great Old Testament respected Jewish Christian scholar, Alfred Edersheim, holds to the coming together of the two lines. He writes:
"The corruption of mankind reached its highest point when even the difference between the Sethites and the Cainites became obliterated by intermarriage between the two parties, and that from sensual motives. We read that 'the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.' At that time the earth must have been in a great measure peopled, and its state is thus described, 'And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.'
This means more than the total corruption of our nature, as we should now describe it, and refers to the universal prevalence of open, daring sin, and rebellion against God, brought about when the separation between the Sethites and the Cainites ceased. With the exception of Noah there was none in that generation 'to call upon the name of Jehovah. … The giants (in Hebrew: Nephilim) were 'men of violence, or tyrants,' as Luther renders it, the root of the word meaning, 'to fall upon.'"
All of the above is what I teach from good, solid exegesis! Almost word for word!
The scholarly Jewish Rabbis in the Soncino commentaries hold to the same view—this is not referring to fallen angels. They write:
"There is no trace in Genesis of 'fallen angels' or rebellious angels; and the idea of inter-marriage of angels and human beings is altogether foreign to Hebrew though. The mythological explanation of this passage was in all ages repelled by a large body of Jewish and non-Jewish commentators, though it has been revived by many modern [and liberal teachers]."
There is one Jewish Christian teacher in Texas who holds to the angel theory. But he does so by following others, holding to mythology and not good exegesis from the Bible. Don't follow him blindly! I work with the best of commentators not those who buy into mythology! In fact, I do more Hebrew exegesis than this dear brother! He often does not do good independent exegesis as he should.
Thanks for asking.
—Dr. Mal Couch (6/11)
Friday, December 10, 2010
Elect
Dr. Couch, the doctrine of election is an awesome truth. What does the word "elect" mean?
ANSWER: The Hebrew word for "elect" is Bah' Char and means "elect" or "chosen."
(A) In a corporate sense the nation of Israel is chosen even though individually the Jews have sinned in that they have not accepted their own promised Messiah. God's promises still remain—the Jews will someday turn to Christ and be back in the good graces of the Lord once more. The Jewish people are "chosen" through the Abrahamic covenant (Psa. 105:8-11). The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed "to Jacob for an everlasting covenant, saying, "To you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance." Notice that the giving of the land is the sign of that covenant. It belongs to the Jews as a perpetual inheritance. The foolish covenant guys (allegorists) try to say that the land no longer belongs to the Jewish people. They have not read their Bible!
God's chosen ones, with a shout of joy" were given "the lands of the nations, that they might take possession of the fruit of the peoples' labor. … Praise the Lord!" (vv. 42-45). As the "chosen ones" they will someday receive prosperity (106:5).
(B) There are two classes of the angelic host. There are those who are joined to the devil; they belong to him (Matt. 25:41). They were cast forth from heaven when he fell. But there are those who did not leave their position with the Lord. They are the "holy" angels (Luke 9:26), and the elect or chosen angels (1 Tim. 5:21). Then there are the believers who are the elect of the Lord. "... just as He chose us ..." (Eph. 1:4). The Greek word here is eklego which means "to out call." Or, "to call out." We can call this word also "to elect." This election took place before "the casting down of the world," or "before the foundation of the world" (v. 4). The result of this calling would make us "holy and blameless" because we are now placed into the holy Son of God—this is our new position! This includes also His predestination which means "to before encircle," or "to put a fence around." The word is "pro-orizo" in Greek.The word of God is so clear and makes such sense when we let it just speak to us! It is not complicated!
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (12/10)
|
Labels:
Abraham covenant,
allegoric,
angelic host,
angels,
Covenant Theology,
election,
Hebrew,
Israel,
Jewish people,
Messiah,
predestination,
Promise,
Satan,
Sin,
Truth
Sunday, December 5, 2010
What Is a Midrash?
Dr. Couch, what is a Midrash? ANSWER: The word is a Hebrew word, Meed'Rash (Midrash). The word is used only twice in the OT in 2 Chronicles 13:22 and 24:27. The first reference is speaking about Abijah and it says his acts "were written down" in the treatise of the prophet Iddo. The second reference refers to Jehoahaz concerning which his acts "were written down" in the Book of the Kings. The word is translated as "writing, written" and "to study." A Midrash today is a coming together of scholars to study certain subjects, or to study the Bible. We need to think, ponder, contemplate, and study where the evangelical church is today, and what does this mean to leaders who are serving the Lord. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (12/10) |
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Redeemed in the Old Testament
Dr. Couch, what does it mean in the OT to be redeemed? ANSWER: Great question! The word in Hebrew is ga'al and it means to buy back as a field or a farm that had been sold. This is well illustrated in Leviticus 25:25. In redeeming an individual blood is always required. The OT gives us pictures of the redemption that Christ would accomplish for us when He went to the cross. The NT word is "lutroo." It can be translated "ransom" or "redeem," with the idea of purchasing a slave out of the market place. Or, out of the market place of sin. Jesus gave His life "as a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). Christ "having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12). Titus 2:14 is a great passage on the subject: Christ "gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession." The question: is this a positional or experiential redemption? It is a positional redemption in that we now have a new position with Him because of what He did for us. We in our daily experiences can still sin and do wrong, but we are thoroughly and eternally redeemed positionally before Him. "Redeem" ("lutroo") is the word that refers to giving a ransom, especially for the release of prisoners of war, slaves, and debtors. Lutroo is the price of release for the liberation of a prisoner. Generally, the release is determined by law or the "right of the sovereign." Jesus actually gave Himself as the ransom price. He was willing to pay the debt of our sins before the sovereign God. Christ made it clear to His disciples that "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a "ransom" for many (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). Peter also alludes to Isaiah 53 and adds that the Lord's "redemption" of us was not "with perishable things like silver or gold … but with the precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). The writer of Hebrews concludes that Christ "entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption … who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God" (9:12-14). Redemption is one of the greatest doctrines that secures our eternal salvation. Without it, there is no eternal life with Christ. Thanks for asking. Dr. Mal Couch (11/10) |
Labels:
Cross,
Experiential,
Hebrew,
Old Testament,
Positionally,
ransom,
Redemption,
Salvation
Monday, November 8, 2010
Talmud and Midrash
Dr. Couch, what is the Talmud and the Midrash?
ANSWER: The body of Hebrew laws, civil and canonical, is based on the Torah, the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, the first five books of our Bible—Genesis through Deuteronomy. The Talmud is like a commentary based on the learned opinions and decisions of Jewish teachers from around 300 BC until 500 AD. The word "Talmud" means "teaching" or "doctrine."
The Talmud is divided into two parts: (1) the Mishnah meaning "the repetition or explanation." This is a collection or digest of "oral laws" traditions and explanations of OT Scripture. (2) the Gemara, meaning "the supplement", a further commentary on the preceding part, the Mishnah.
The Midrash is also a formal doctrinal and "preaching" exposition of the Hebrew Scriptures written in Hebrew or Aramaic (which is a language related to Hebrew). The Midrash is a commentary not simply a translation. The Midrash is a further expansion of the Law of Moses.
I believe commentaries on the Old and New Testaments are helpful in giving us an understanding of the Bible. But they do not become the Bible itself! Commentaries are simply "helps" that we do not take as authoritative. But the Jews begin to see these writings as having absolute authority as if they were the Word of God itself!
The Midrash flourished from about 100 BC to 300 AD. This was at first an oral writing but was then turned into permanent written form. These were the earliest synagogue readings or "sermons" that were quoted and read to the common people in their assemblies.
Unfortunately, the people moved farther and farther away from reading the OT Scriptures themselves to simply reading these commentaries and avoiding the OT manuscripts specifically. In other words, the commentaries became authoritative and the writings of the prophets who wrote under the guidance of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit began to be ignored. This specifically has happened also in Catholicism. What the Church Fathers say has more weight than the prophets or the apostles!
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (11/10)
|
Labels:
commentaries,
Doctrine,
Hebrew,
Holy Spirit,
Law,
Midrash,
Mishnah,
Moses,
Old Testament,
Pentateuch,
Tamud,
Torah,
tradition
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Names of Christ
Dr. Couch, what do the names of Christ mean in Isaiah 9:6 from the Hebrew text?
ANSWER: I am glad you asked this because I am now teaching the book of Isaiah on Monday nights at Clifton Bible Church. Actually, there is only one long name (singular) in this verse. In the Hebrew language it looks like this in the English transliteration: Pele-Joez-el-Gibbor-Abi-ad-Sar-Shalom.
In the Jewish translation of the Hebrew, and even in the orthodox Hebrew commentary, they leave the name just like this, thus, unless the readers knew Hebrew, they could not interpret the words that make up this one name!
The Jewish commentary does admit "The meaning of the Hebrew words is 'Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.'" There is more to this one name. By the way, "the Everlasting Father" should better be translated "The Father of Eternity." This is referring to Christ. He is not God the Father, He is God the Son. Therefore, to say He is the Father of Eternity is far more accurate.
PELE means the Messiah is "extraordinarily marvelous," with the idea that He can speak "unheard-of" words. When the Messiah rules He will have awesome powers and will be the most outspoken with wisdom and righteousness.
JOEZ is the simple Hebrew word for "counselor." His advice will be perfect. He will not advise from the human standpoint but from the Divine! No human governor has ever expressed such perfection. He will rule with full authority and absolute wisdom!
EL is one of the most basic words for God. It is often used in a compound. He is "the High God." The Messiah is Very God/Very Man. Whatever can be said of God is said of Christ, the God-Man!
GIBBOR has the idea of God "the Strong One." It is used of a military leader. The Messiah is "manly, vigorous, a benevolent Despot, a hero, a warrior." It is a word used of the most powerful of animals. "The horse, crocodile." These animals represent the most fierce man can encounter—so is the Messiah. There will be no one like Him!
ABI is part of the phrase "ABI-AD, or Father of Eternity." He heads up the realm of The Forever! The Son of God, the Messiah, has always been! He was born into the realm of humanity but in spirit and soul, the Son has always existed, has always been! He is the eternal Son of God with no beginning and no ending.
SAR means "the leading person, the ruler, the chief." He is the Guardian, the military General, the Higher Being! The Messiah is no pushover, He is not passive. He is the ultimate Authority, the final Arbiter. He is the one will command full authority in His eternal earthly and cosmic realm!
SHALOM means the Messiah is the one who is full of kindness, salvation. He represents "personal wholeness" and completeness. When He rules He will have prosperous relationships—peace. He has peaceful intentions in His universal rule.
I trust this will cause a great appreciate for our Savior!
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (10/10)
|
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Translation of Joel 3:21
Dr. Couch, what is going on in the translation of Joel 3:21? There is a different word used: "I will acquit," or "I will pardon," or "I will avenge." Which word should be used?
ANSWER: The Rabbis translate this as "I will hold as innocent their blood that I have not held as innocent." The point of the passage is that God has not avenged the Jews because of all the terrible treatment they experienced from the Egyptians and the Edomites, as mentioned in verse 19. But He will someday!
Unger prefers "avenged" and says about this word NaCHaT: "The Lord had not cleansed. Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon." "Zion will have come into salvation and fellowship with her Redeemer [in the future kingdom], and her Redeemer will make His dwelling place with her."
In the Hebrew this verb is a Piel form and should be translated "I will definitely, intensely avenge" Israel. God is going to do this someday when Israel is being blessed in the kingdom with the Messiah reigning! We are getting closer to this great Day! He is coming soon.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
(Jan., 10)
|
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Bible Translation Recommendation
Dr. Couch, what Bible translation do you recommend?
ANSWER: I'm often asked about the NIV. It is more of a freewheeling or almost a paraphrase, and therefore I do not recommend it. I prefer the NAS because, as I translate from the Hebrew and Greek, I find it the closest to the original languages, and therefore the best and the most reliable. For Christmas gifts one may consider an NAS version with the Scofield Notes. This really can be helpful for new, young Bible students.
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch (September 2009)
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)