A Clash of World Views

[AW Bowman]

The differences between the Hebrew mind set (world view) and the Gentile (Greek), has been explored rather extensively on other boards in this forum and by others on other forums and internet communities. However, the discussions have usually centered around the thinking process and the use of language in the expressing of culturally and religiously based ideas and concepts. What has been missing is a comparison of how these two differing views are employed to perceive (interpret) the word of God, and how they differ in applying that word to one\s life.

In looking through the scriptures, from Genesis on, the one thing that stands out like a tower in the middle of the sea, but over looked in almost every picture, is that the Hebrew mind set seldom looks into the nature of God, His composition or even His deity. Even in the New Covenant writings, except when addressing Gentiles, little is said concerning the attributes, elements or composition of what constitutes the reality of God. This is amazing, considering that so much of the time and effort of church leaders is spent in attempting to describe God and understand His ways and in the attempt to address obtuse questions and issues. The Hebrews, on the other hand, spend most of their time attempting to understand what it is that pleases God, and how they are to individually and collectively identify and achieve those requirements.

In the Gentile mid set, it the attempt to live by faith and not by works (in order to gain a place in heaven). In the Hebrew mind set it is the attempt to live by earning personal merit in God\s eyes (in order to gain a place in the world to come).It is at this point that the clash of spiritual perceptions takes place. We see from the apostolic writings that this clash started three centuries prior to the advent of Emperor Constantine\s success in severing the western Christian movement from its Hebrew roots during in the fourth century (See The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, translated by Christian Frederick Cruse, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1989.)

Even so, hidden within the world views shared among Gentiles is the seed of our own spiritual weakness, i.e., the driving need to understand that which is beyond understanding, and to know with a certainty that which is unknowable. This is sometimes referred to as the \abstract thought process\.

Hellenistic thought patterns take from and then back again to Aristotelian logic and the Socratic method of philosophical inquiry, as we ponder the nature of existence (physical reality), man (who and what are we, and our place in the scheme of things), and the gods (to understand the spiritualnon-physical elements of nature, both \real and imagined\). This approach to comprehending the nature of existence (in whatever terms one cares to use) is wonderfully summed up in Pilate\s court when he asked of Jesus, “What is \truth\?” (John 18:37-38) Logic and philosophy, these constitute the fundamental elements of our abstract (western civilization, Gentile) thought process, and have provided the world with the bulk of technological and scientific advancements that we enjoy today. They also provide us with serious spiritual questions like, “How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?” and, “If heaven and hell actually exist, where are they physically located in relation to my current residence?”

Then what of the traditional Hebrew though process? What does that give us?

[AW Bowman]

Next part quickly - but, please feel free to add your thoughts!

[AW Bowman]

While thinking about what and how to describe the next step in this discussion, I ran across this today (121609.

[url=http:www.godward.orgHebrew%20Rootshebrew_mind_vs__the_western_mind.htm]The Hebrew Mind vs The Western Mind[url]

The author has stated so well the thoughts that I have been stumbling over for quite some time.

Everyone should find something, a hook or a tag, upon which to examine their approach to studying the Bible.

[John Harris]

Blind faith versus knowledge faith, is where they lost me.. It seems to me the Hebrews are still blind to the fact it is not by site (knowledge) but by faith. How do the hebrew define Romans 7;1-25?

[AW Bowman]

I don\t know John - guess we\ll have to ask a Hebrew! ;)

[John Harris]

Romans 7 (Amplified Bible)

Romans 7
1DO YOU not know, brethren--for I am speaking to men who are acquainted with the Law--that legal claims have power over a person only for as long as he is alive?
2For [instance] a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is loosed and discharged from the law concerning her husband.

3Accordingly, she will be held an adulteress if she unites herself to another man while her husband lives. But if her husband dies, the marriage law no longer is binding on her [she is free from that law]; and if she unites herself to another man, she is not an adulteress.

4Likewise, my brethren, you have undergone death as to the Law through the [crucified] body of Christ, so that now you may belong to Another, to Him Who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God.

5When we were living in the flesh (mere physical lives), the sinful passions that were awakened and aroused up by [what] the Law [makes sin] were constantly operating in our natural powers (in our bodily organs, [a]in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh), so that we bore fruit for death.

6But now we are discharged from the Law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under obedience to the promptings] of the Spirit in newness [of life].

7What then do we conclude? Is the Law identical with sin? Certainly not! Nevertheless, if it had not been for the Law, I should not have recognized sin or have known its meaning. [For instance] I would not have known about covetousness [would have had no consciousness of sin or sense of guilt] if the Law had not [repeatedly] said, You shall not covet and have an evil desire [for one thing and another].(A)

8But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment [to express itself], got a hold on me and aroused and stimulated all kinds of forbidden desires (lust, covetousness). For without the Law sin is dead [the sense of it is inactive and a lifeless thing].

9Once I was alive, but quite apart from and unconscious of the Law. But when the commandment came, sin lived again and I died (was sentenced by the Law to death).(B)

10And the very legal ordinance which was designed and intended to bring life actually proved [to mean to me] death.(C)

11For sin, seizing the opportunity and getting a hold on me [by taking its incentive] from the commandment, beguiled and entrapped and cheated me, and using it [as a weapon], killed me.

12The Law therefore is holy, and [each] commandment is holy and just and good.

13Did that which is good then prove fatal [bringing death] to me? Certainly not! It was sin, working death in me by using this good thing [as a weapon], in order that through the commandment sin might be shown up clearly to be sin, that the extreme malignity and immeasurable sinfulness of sin might plainly appear.

14We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am a creature of the flesh [carnal, unspiritual], having been sold into slavery under [the control of] sin.

15For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled, bewildered]. I do not practice or accomplish what I wish, but I do the very thing that I loathe [[b]which my moral instinct condemns].

16Now if I do [habitually] what is contrary to my desire, [that means that] I acknowledge and agree that the Law is good (morally excellent) and that I take sides with it.

17However, it is no longer I who do the deed, but the sin [principle] which is at home in me and has possession of me.

18For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot perform it. [I have the intention and urge to do what is right, but no power to carry it out.]

19For I fail to practice the good deeds I desire to do, but the evil deeds that I do not desire to do are what I am [ever] doing.

20Now if I do what I do not desire to do, it is no longer I doing it [it is not myself that acts], but the sin [principle] which dwells within me [[c]fixed and operating in my soul].

21So I find it to be a law (rule of action of my being) that when I want to do what is right and good, evil is ever present with me and I am subject to its insistent demands.

22For I endorse and delight in the Law of God in my inmost self [with my new nature].(D)

23But I discern in my bodily members [[d]in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh] a different law (rule of action) at war against the law of my mind (my reason) and making me a prisoner to the law of sin that dwells in my bodily organs [[e]in the sensitive appetites and wills of the flesh].

24O unhappy and pitiable and wretched man that I am! Who will release and deliver me from [the shackles of] this body of death?

25O thank God! [He will!] through Jesus Christ (the Anointed One) our Lord! So then indeed I, of myself with the mind and heart, serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.




Footnotes:
a.Romans 7:5 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Holy Bible.
b.Romans 7:15 Frederic Godet, cited by Marvin Vincent, Word Studies.
c.Romans 7:20 Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon.
d.Romans 7:23 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Holy Bible.
e.Romans 7:23 Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Holy Bible.
Cross references:
A.Romans 7:7 : Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21
B.Romans 7:9 : Ps 73:22
C.Romans 7:10 : Lev 18:5
D.Romans 7:22 : Ps 1:2

[AW Bowman]

John - thanks for the exposition. That passage really does point out the difference between the Jews and Gentiles, and how we differ in our approach to scripture study and to spiritual things is general.

Here Paul writes excessively in support of the legitimacy of the Law and what it is designed to accomplish, and his response to attempting to correctly observe that Law - and the results of that effort.

Again, his focus is on the \how to\, not the why-fores. He talks about the his observance of the Law and not on the understanding of the spiritual foundation of the Law. Observance of the Law is a given, in that obedience is required and the results are always the same – because of man\s weakness, failure is always the outcome.

Then, we have Paul\s interjection of Jesus Christ into the mix, which modifies the results of observing the Law. Again, it is the approach of \"Jesus intervened and this is now the new results to be expected\", Paul\s writing is not an attempt to understanding the mechanics of the Law, sin, salvation or their inter relationships or how man fits into the scheme of things, but simply to relate, “ these things are the given - and these things are the expected results.”

We Gentiles are generally more interested in the mechanics of the events, searching for the exceptions, defining Paul\s doctrine in terms of church dynamics, finding out the pivotal points in the doctrine – in short, we prefer to discuss the philosophy of scripture while Jews focus on how to apply scripture.

A weakness of the Hebrew approach is that they have a difficult time getting to the point of understanding the purpose and depth of the Law and what it was designed to accomplish, while we Gentiles attempt to understand the Law so well that it no longer has a place in our lives.

The results: After 5,000 years there are still only 4-5 major Jewish denominations in the world, while we Gentiles have given birth to thousands of denominations, small religious groups and churches in less than 500 years. Every difference in religious opinion (philosophy) gives rise to another \movement\.

Jesus the Jew said \[b]I am[b] the truth\. A Gentile then asked Him, “[b]What is[b] truth?” The Jew answered him with silence. Therein is the difference in world views.

Jesus the Jew said, “Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?” I am in the Father and the Father is in me - The Jew either accepted or rejected that answer. A Gentile response would be more like, “How is that possible, can you please explain that to me, what are the spiritual and physical dynamics and how does that affect me?”

Another example is the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus gave examples of the Law and how they were to be observed and why, Or the beatitudes, blessed is …... for they shall …... : Here it is, now go and do it. Gentiles require an explanation of why the blessing in the first place and how all of these statements fit together and to what extent non-Jewish believers are to comply with these modified laws. They question how many such laws and blessings should be applied to Gentiles, and how many apply to the Jews and under what conditions andor circumstances, does this list include those laws that Jesus did not reference or just to these laws only, etc., etc.

Final note: This is not to suggest that Gentiles do not also have an interest in learning what it is to observe God instructions (we call it living holy), or that the Jews do not have an interest in understanding the spiritual foundations of their religion. The two very different world views are not mutually exclusive – but the focus and main intent of the two are very divergent. The gospel is truly a rock to the Jews because it does not fit well into their \rock solid\ world view, and the gospel is truly foolishness to the Gentile because it does not fit easily into Aristotle\s philosophy. So, both sides have something in need of correction.

So, bottom line: It is not that one is right and the other wrong (a Gentile view of conflict) but that to gain a greater understanding of scriptures we must understand them from the writer\s world view. I would suggest that we then integrate the two, i.e., performance with understanding.

AND, YES, ONE CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT ALL OF THIS ADDITIONAL STUDY AND \UNDERSTANDING\! Thank God!

[John Harris]

Thank you too, for a more clearer viewpoint. Wow! enough to keep me silent for a while.

[AW Bowman]

[b]John Harris wrote:[b]
[quote]Wow! enough to keep me silent for a while.[quote]

I hope not - your questions and demands for better explanations is one of my own primary methods of learning!