study | EXPEDITION 44

Most of scripture was written thousands of years ago and orally (memorized) and handed down through generations then eventually (as technology gave way to) was put to script followed by scribes carefully debating every word. Somehow, perhaps miraculously, I believe the message has stayed whole, or within the ideals of inspiration. However, a bit like the telephone game spanning over generations and multiple language differences, study is necessary; and what the scripture describes as a sign of intimacy with God.

Know the scripture and know Jesus.

Matt 6:21 is a rough quote of Psalm 37:4, Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” Often when we talk about what was written in the pages of old and emphasized by Jesus, we find a notion that everyone is on their own journey but at the end of the day the devotion of the heart is likely the measure of person before the Lord. Proverbs 4:23 plainly reads in most English translations something like, “above all guard your heart.”

The devotion of the heart is based on circular Hebraic thinking. Essentially if you train yourself to diligently pursue something spiritual, eventually it becomes you or what your life embodies. You are a representation of that which you (TRULY) love. God started this process by opening the invitation, you meet Him with offering your heart’s devotion (as a sacrifice placed on the altar), and then He bless and keeps you transforming your heart and giving you immeasurably more. The end result is a partnership similar to what was presented in Eden. But there is also a sense of opposites in this way of thinking too; it is contranym language; if your heart is in the world then that is the path you will walk.

Like so many, this verse is sometimes misunderstood, particularly the idea of “guarding.”

It doesn’t flow well but you can see the Hebrew carries a bit different rendering, in diligence or devotion, keep (guard, cultivate, condition) your heart out of or from the “spring” or the “issues of life.” When you break this down it gives you a different idea than we might get than thinking about simply “guarding” our heart.

Mismar (diligence): The Hebrew word “mishmar” primarily refers to a place or state of guarding or keeping watch. It can denote a physical location such as a prison or a figurative state of being under watch or custody. The term is used to describe both the act of guarding and the place where guarding occurs. In ancient Israel, the concept of guarding was integral to both religious and societal structures. The Levites, for example, were tasked with guarding the tabernacle and later the temple, ensuring that sacred spaces were protected. The idea of watchfulness extended to various aspects of life, including the protection of cities, the safeguarding of individuals, and the maintenance of moral and spiritual vigilance.
Nesor (keep):The Hebrew verb “natsar” primarily means to guard or keep something with care. It conveys the idea of protecting or preserving something valuable, often with a sense of vigilance and attentiveness. In the biblical context, it is frequently used to describe the act of keeping commandments, guarding one’s heart, or preserving knowledge and wisdom. In ancient Israelite culture, the concept of guarding or keeping was integral to daily life, whether it involved protecting physical possessions, maintaining the purity of religious practices, or upholding moral and ethical standards. The Israelites were often reminded to “natsar” God’s commandments as a sign of their covenant relationship with Him. This term reflects the broader Near Eastern understanding of stewardship and responsibility.
Libbeka (heart): n the Hebrew Bible, “leb” primarily refers to the heart, not just as a physical organ but as the center of human emotion, thought, will, and moral character. It encompasses the inner life of a person, including feelings, desires, intellect, and decision-making processes. The heart is seen as the seat of wisdom and understanding, as well as the source of moral and spiritual life. In ancient Hebrew culture, the heart was considered the core of a person’s being. Unlike modern Western thought, which often separates emotion and intellect, the Hebrew concept of the heart integrates these aspects. The heart is where one discerns truth, makes decisions, and experiences emotions. It is also the place where one encounters God and responds to His commandments. The heart’s condition is crucial in determining one’s relationship with God and others.
Mimmenu (out of it): The Hebrew preposition “min” is a versatile term used to denote separation, origin, cause, comparison, and time. It often indicates the point of departure or the source from which something originates. It can also be used in comparative contexts to express “more than” or “less than.” In ancient Hebrew culture, prepositions like “min” were crucial for conveying relationships between objects, people, and concepts. The use of “min” reflects a worldview that emphasizes origins and sources, which is consistent with the biblical emphasis on lineage, heritage, and divine causality. Understanding the use of “min” helps in grasping the relational dynamics present in biblical narratives and laws.
Towsowt (issues): The Hebrew word “totsaah” primarily refers to the concept of an “outcome” or “end result.” It can also denote an “exit” or “issue,” emphasizing the conclusion or result of a process or event. In the biblical context, it often relates to the outcomes of actions, decisions, or divine interventions. In ancient Hebrew culture, the concept of outcomes or results was significant, as it often reflected divine will or judgment. The Israelites understood that their actions, whether righteous or sinful, would lead to specific outcomes, which were seen as either blessings or curses from God. This understanding was deeply embedded in their covenant relationship with Yahweh, where obedience led to favorable outcomes, and disobedience led to adverse consequences. The “flowing spring” is a reference to the refining waters of Eden.
Hayyim (of life): The Hebrew word “chay” primarily denotes the state of being alive or living. It is used to describe living creatures, life itself, and sometimes metaphorically to refer to prosperity or vitality. In the Old Testament, “chay” is often used to contrast with death, emphasizing the dynamic and active nature of life. It can also refer to the quality of life, such as in expressions of well-being or flourishing. In ancient Hebrew culture, life was seen as a divine gift from God, and the concept of “chay” was deeply intertwined with the covenant relationship between God and His people. Life was not only a biological state but also a spiritual condition, reflecting one’s relationship with God. The Israelites understood life as a blessing and a sign of God’s favor, often associated with obedience to God’s commandments and the resulting peace and prosperity.

Putting all of this together, we find garden language, bringing back Edenic ways of living and walking with God. “Guard” takes on the idea of cherubim guarding Eden but so much more. It speaks to devotion, it speaks to cultivating, it speaks to keeping which is something that you present as a sacrifice and God accepts and “cultivates”. It speaks to diligence and perseverance; it speaks to the way work before the Lord was intended and not what the fall made toil into. It speaks to passions of the circular dance of grace and the very reason we were destined to give glory to Jesus. It is a return to things that were given by God and entrusted to us in a partnership with Him.

These things that are TOV start with the heart and end with the heart shepherded by Jesus Himself.

Wait what? All that in the one word? -I don’t think so!

Just about every day I scroll through a “BIBLE” meme on Facebook that makes me cringe. I used to comment but I no longer do largely because I think sometimes people don’t interpret the comments as useful, or teaching better theology but as some kind of self-promotion, or “I think I am better than you” type of thing. I think that is unfortunate. I believe part of shepherding and discipleship is a Mars Hill or rabbinical teaching method of being open to constantly learning and working through a better understanding of the test with the giftings of those around you. To keep each other Biblically sharp and accountable to be faithful to the text. Letting people get really loose with the text has led to alot of bad theology and ditch diving. I believe the Bible greatly encouraged textual exploration together within the body. That is what the body of Christ is supposed to do. I have 40 years of deeply studying the Bible under my belt and God has gifted me with a certain learned spiritual intuition of exegesis. I hope it comes as a gift to those that have a learning posture towards the scripture. To those more interested in fighting or finger pointing, or making internet dumpster fires, I am not interested.

THE MEME:

At first glance this probably looks pretty neat. It’s challenging, it looks at the original language rather than an English glossed translation, it comes off as going deeper. So, what’s the problem? Well, it isn’t faithful.

A faithful translation means you let the text speak for the text. You don’t read your own desire into the text. This commonly referred to as good exegesis.

In this case, here are some issues:

One word? Sort of. The text is Genesis 3:9. Start by typing that into a browser followed by the word interlinear. The first link will be the Bible Hub, click it. The word is ’ay·yek·kāh and you will see the [are] is in parentheses. It technically isn’t in the text but linguistically it is- but it is understood such as an understood “YOU” in English. Click the word and you are going to find there is only one occurrence of this “word” or conjunction of words in the Bible. This is called a Hapax Legomenon. The basic hermeneutical law or idea of any Hapax Legomenon is because it is rare don’t read too much into it. See if you can find how it is used outside of the Bible to give you a better understanding of how the text uses it. But in this case, it isn’t a “TRUE” Hapax Legomenon in the sense that if you click the root word above which is Strong’s 335 you will see the root is “ay” in Hebrew which occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. We have a pretty good idea of what it means! There are some words or phrases in the Bible where we don’t even have the root anywhere else and that is a better example of a Hapax Legomenon, but they are both technically considered Hapax Legomenon’s. This one we can see essentially means “where or how” which makes sense in the English translation “where are you?” I would encourage you to read the usage and cultural notes below the word. These are theologically very basic and at times arguable, but still give you a better start. In this case it notes that the word can come with distress or lament. Seems true to this text! It also notes that this particular word is often noted of spiritual locations within the cosmos. Again, true to the text. Most of the time these notes don’t get too controversial and are written by well noted scholars. This is sort of important because there are other similar words in Hebrew that could have been used without a sometimes-spiritual emphasis. We see this importance in Deuteronomy 32 when the text asks “Where are there gods.” It is also used in 1 Samuel 9:18 in regard to the SEER. It is used in 2 Samuel 15:2 in regard to the city which is interesting and could be signified as one of the reasons I believe in ancient times cities were gatherings of fallen spiritual beings and people aligned to their ways and rival to Yahweh. In Job 2 it is used to ask where “the satan” came from. The problem is (as you can see to the column on the right of all the verses using this Hebrew root) there are at least a few texts that don’t seem to take on “spiritual spatial” significance, it just means where? So that tells us we can’t read too much into a sense of cosmic space every time we see the word used. Hermeneutically it may or may not have spiritual bearing. Therefore, we have to determine from the rest of the text whether it does or not. In other words, we don’t have the “RIGHT” to attribute a spiritual significance to the simple text “where” unless something in the rest of the text gives it to us for certain. If the text doesn’t grant it, then we have to determine if we the ability to say it could go that way, but we don’t know for sure. It may or may not have spiritual spatial implications. In this text we already know they are in Eden, so the context gives us the sacred space.

To say that it is one word is accurate (I would have said the same thing), but it’s a bit complicated as in Hebrew bits of different words form one word. This is actually really helpful in determining what one word can mean because we can break the word up and study the microcosm of it. In this case you would think all the things the author of that post says the word means would be great if the word could have been textually broken up that way. The problem in this case is it doesn’t say all those things. We get “where” which (as we already noted) may or likely implies a spiritual search-find. You could take away from the text exegetically that God is “searching us out” or “looking for us” or perhaps even noting that the space is spiritual as I already alluded to. All of those things could be good exegesis. That is what the text gives us. Next, we have the understood {ARE}. We don’t really get anything magical from that. Then we have “you” essentially as formed into the singular word. There is really not much to exegete there either. He is talking to a certain person. DO we have the right to insert our name here? Well, the genre of this text is a historical narrative. Simply telling the story. So no, we don’t really have the right to insert our name. Because God was seeking out Adam in the garden doesn’t give us the textual ability to say He searches us out the same. He may or may not, but the text doesn’t give us that warrant. So here you see the author of the meme breaking some huge theological and hermeneutical laws. He takes a text that isn’t about him and tries to make it about him or us. This is called reading into the text. Using the Bible to twist it into saying what you want it to say without the merit of the text giving you that. Now could it mean that later God will act the same towards you? Yeah, later the text may do that but here it doesn’t. However, if you read the text doing that for others in the story over and over and over you might come to an ontological conclusion that if there are 26 examples of God acting this way in the narrative, we have then maybe he acts this way towards me too! (But to be clear, the text still wouldn’t give us that for certain.) Sometimes people take a lot of latitude to say the scripture means something that the text never gave or intended to give. That seems to be the case here. It simply isn’t good theology or maybe even theology at all. It is saying the Bible says something in a text that doesn’t say that.
“God’s first words after the fall” – We don’t know this either. The Bible doesn’t give us the full account. There may have been other words. Perhaps these are the first words in the Bible after the fall. But making the statement that the author makes in the way that he does isn’t true. Does this seem nitpicky? Maybe but there is a difference, and it matters in biblical interpretation and textual criticism.
This is classic for someone trying to make a doctrine or in the authors words, “a whole theology” over something the text doesn’t say. The text says nothing of the lost. Was Adam lost? We aren’t told that he was. Was he asking for a confession. Later scripture tells us that when we sin, we need to confess, but that isn’t in the text here. What about restoration and redemption? Well, everyone knows God wants restoration and redemption, right? But this text doesn’t go here either. Are you following me? There are texts that talk about redemption and restoration but not this one. In fact, maybe the opposite. This text leads to exile from the garden, that is the opposite of restoration. So what it does tell us is exile may come before restorative acts. That could be a more faithful takeaway than what the author of the meme comes up with. The author improperly says the text means something that isn’t given to us. It is as if the author is trying to write his own Bible and proof text the word to say what he wants it to say. The real problem is that we are saying the word says something that it isn’t. Maybe other places say that, but a better hermeneutic is to only exegete what the text says. Don’t add or fill in anything. There is no context for the takeaways the author asserts over the text.

CONCLUSION

A Faithful reading of the text means we only take away what the text gives us. We can’t read anything else into it. I can’t tell you how many times in a sermon I hear a pastor say “the Bible says this” and goes on to quote a verse that doesn’t say anything close to what the pastor says it said. In many cases we have become all too comfortable with accepting things like this, and it has led to a lot of bad consequences. It seems there are so many people are using the Bible for their own gain saying what they want it to ay and that is unfaithful to the text.

NOTE; The Bible Hub is free, easily accessible and works well. LOGOS is better but is $$$.

Dr. Will Ryan