Posted on 06/16/2012 11:00:56 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
As an attorney, I sometimes have the distasteful job of telling a client that they have no case. It really is not a happy thing. I could wish for every client to hit the jackpot, but I would be doing them no favors by allowing them to spend time and effort pursuing something which has no basis in the law.
So here, I must tell you that you probably should not pin your hopes of physical ancestry to one of the lost ten tribes of Israel on the use of “nivracheu” (aka nivrachu) in Genesis 12:3. The meaning you have been told, that it somehow references “mixing,” or “grafting in,” is spurious.
The Hebrew root is “barak,” which simply means “to bless.” In Hebrew, words are routinely modified to adapt to how they are used in a sentence. In this case, the letter “nun” is added to the front to make it a Niphal conjugation (passive or reflexive voice, depending on context), and that is further prefixed with a “vav,” which makes it a past perfect tense, or the idea of a done deal, what is sometimes called the “prophetic perfect tense,” speaking of a future event as though it were an accomplished fact.
In all of that, there is nothing remotely like a so-called “special” form of “barak” which doubles for “grafted in” or “mixed.” All you see in this passage is an ordinary, everyday Niphal conjugation of “to bless.” That’s just how you make words in Hebrew.
Now I am aware that some are claiming support for the “grafted” view from examples in various extrabiblical sources. All of these are asserting the possibility of an obscure alternative usage for the term. But in the samples typically used to promote the “grafted” view, Talmudic or otherwise, none of them turn out to be any good. Either the conjugation form is different, rendering the “pun” theory irrelevant, or an incorrect grouping of words is applied, or some other blatant mishandling of basic grammatical rules invalidates the alleged proof.
And one would have to wonder how the ordinary scribe of Israel would react to this hidden “mixing” concept, since so much else in the law emphasizes that mixing is bad. Using Moses as a template for spiritual realities per the book of Hebrews, one would have to conclude that God used mixing as a metaphor for impurity, idolatry, incompleteness of devotion to the pattern of worship established by God, and so forth. None of this would seem compatible with the idea of a blessing.
Furthermore, there appears to be evidence from the New Testament that such a meaning as biological mixing is quite impossible. Consider the following passage:
Gal 3:13-16 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Paul here seems to be saying that the blessing promised had a definite means of conveyance, faith in Christ. He further emphasizes that the blessing is not transmitted along a limitless number of separate biological lines (“seeds”), but is transmitted to whoever is found in Christ (“the seed”) through faith:
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Notice the order. First you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and an heir to the promise. Not the other way around.
Now Paul recognizes that even among humans, once a contract is set, you can’t add to it or take away from it. One of the ways people try to circumvent a contract is by attempting to “discover” an ambiguity from which they can extract some new meaning not intended by the original parties to the contract. And that is why contract law resists ambiguities. If there is an easy, obvious way to understand the plain sense of what the parties agreed to by taking the words at their face value, you’re not allowed to look for hidden or secondary meanings that radically alter that plain sense meaning. The judge won’t let you do that. I think that’s a good rule to apply here. “To bless” just means what it says, “to bless.”
“Regarding your question about the use of the word “nivrechu” to mean more than just “blessing” but rather as “mixed” or “grafted”:
In Hebrew, Beresheit/Genesis 12:3 literally reads: “Ve’nivrechu bekah kol mishpachot ha-adamah.” “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you and in you all the nations of the earth shall be mixed! The Hebrew word translated in most translations as “blessed”, is the Hebrew word “ve’nivrechu.” “ve-Nivrechu” appears only three times in the Tanak at Beresheit 12:3, 18:18 and 28:14 and all three times it speaks of how Avraham will affect the nations of the earth. This word can also mean “mixed” or “grafted” as much as it connotes blessing. This is important when one understands the greater plan of Yahuwah to fulfill His promise to Avraham and his descendants to, yes, certainly “bless” the nations but also in “how” He would do that blessing: via “grafting” or “mixing” of his seed into all the nations.
For a greater understanding of “nivrechu” you could go to,
http://yourarmstoisrael.org/Articles_new/questions/?page=summer2003&type=2
Now Gen 12:3 is not my only scriptural premise to base my beliefs on, there are many from Genesis through Revelation.
Just as a starter I recommend Jim Staley, a Pastor in St. Louis, who has a great teaching that is solid named “Identity Crisis” It’ sound scripturally or if you want to check out my web page www.forthispurpose.tv. I offer my free ebook on what was the Gospel Jesus preached...He didn't preach about his death, burial, and resurrection...yet that is the gospel traditional Christianity has preached. So what was the Gospel Jesus and his disciples preached for 3 1/2 years? My book answers that question. If your interested. But what I have found is that only if the Holy Spirit draws a person to see these truths, it just ain't going to happen. And if it doesn't, that's ok...none of my business, it's between the person and Yahweh.
However you choose to pursue or not to pursue, I am sure you are a very nice man as you showed me great respect in your thoughtful answer so I ask Yahweh to bless your relationship with Him and if I am scripturally out of order I pray Yahweh stop me from continuing on as a Bible teacher of these truths or correct me where I am wrong.
Really, Jesus would NOT find a welcome in a mormon chapel, and He would certainly be denied entrance to a mormon temple.
I think of a jack Mormon as some one who would wear boots and jeans except maybe to church which would be only 3 or 4 times a year, some one who liked to smoke and drink now and again or again and again and again.
Some one who worked hard and played hard and were not afraid to get their hands dirty, some one who were raised in the church but did not go along with it much.
These people, some of them good and some pretty trashy did not know enough about the word of God to know for sure why but they were not for religion.
But times change and it would be different now, when people rebel some of them will just go the other direction to a degree that makes sense to them.
Others will start hating every thing connected to ( in this instance ) religion, including God and go to the opposite extreme.
My father smoked and drank, as did many of his peers, considered himself LDS and never wanted any FREE Stuff.
This is the Religion Forum. The behavior you note does not in any way prevent someone from knowing God and being saved.
The list is satire on the legalistic attitude of the mormon church.
In case you aren't aware of this, mormonism teaches that the ONLY way to salvation is to take part in arcane rituals in mormon temples. An interview with a bishop is required to attain a "ticket" for entry into these temples.
The behavior you copied from the lead thread is certainly not the way to get a "ticket to salvation, mormon-style", therefore the outward appearance of a seeker would overwhelm the inward desire for a relationship with Jesus.
Sorry that message doesn't appear to reach you.
Sorry, I have to ask you to explain that statement. It makes no sense to me as written. Thanks.
More likely a Jack Squat.
Compliments of FReeper Utah Binger
LOL, brewed a pot just for you this morning at 5:00 am!
In fact, I imagine there are very few, devout religious people of every denomination who follow the spirit and letter of whatever the teachings are.
It was the devout religious leaders who tried to keep Jesus out.
I think religion is the enemy of Christs teachings.
I believe if jesus,s words were the only thing we had of the Scriptures and we heeded them that would be enough.
At the same time i am also my own worst enemy, as i believe in the necessity in Cor Ch 11 where paul says that a womans hair is her glory, or beauty, but if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, i really believe that.
At the same time i think there is nothing more disgusting than a man in kiddie britches with his baby knees showing following a well built woman wearing jeans.
The part about long hair is in the Bible in plain words but as you know some of them twist it around to mean something else.
But as far as i know the mens baby knees sticking out is not even mentioned in the Bible so it just comes from my self righteous tradition and becomes a religion, and in that sense religion is wrong.
But i am not going to start wearing shorts just to prove that i am open minded.
And i do not doubt that many religious teachings in quite a few religious institutes come from this very same thing but scripture is twisted around to confuse the real meaning for people who are not apt to search for them selves.
Well you notice that i said i think or i believe, the fact is that i don,t really know anything except that Jesus is the one who is Christ and Christ is the Lord.
Sorry, I have to ask you to explain that statement. It makes no sense to me as written. Thanks.
I also think Jesus would be welcome as part of the congregation, but how many would recognize him for who he really was.
If Jesus was wearing jeans or maybe smoking a cigar i think that would be enough to keep the leaders in most churches from even considering that he was really the Lord.
Sorry that you seem to have such a low opinion of Christians. No one smokes around churches anymore and wearing jeans is very common among many Christian churches.
There are only a handful of sects that have a required "uniform" for their members and mormonism is one of them. That's what makes the OP a satire.
No one smokes around churches anymore and wearing jeans is very common among many Christian churches.
============================================================Well, i guess there is hope, you maybe got part of what i was saying, sorry that i can not find the words to make myself clear.
Yes, many Christians wear Jeans to Church, i was not talking about Christians, i was talking about religious leaders.
And you are right, most Christians do not smoke around the Church because they have been bombarded by the religious leaders of the sin of using tobacco.
To make it real plain, i do not put Christians and religious people in the same house.
I hope this does not sound like bashing or hate or something other than what it is, which is only my opinion.
I do not have any problems with Mormons though i have been around them most of 75 years and have known from the time i was 14 that Mormonism is just a religion.
At the same time i can see that if Mormonism was ruling the world we may have a big problem.
But the devil works to deceive, he is subtle, that means he will use or is using something that looks as identical to the real thing as possible.
I don,t know how to make it any plainer than that, however if you believe that Christianity and religion are the same thing then i can see you not understanding my view.
I am in agreement with most of it. It wasn't clear earlier that you were dividing the leaders from the congregation in your comments.
I do not believe that Christianity and religion are the same thing.
I am as pleased as you to be having this conversation on cordial terms. One never knows how it will go at the beginning of such dialogues. I am pleased to discuss this in a spirit of peace.
But of course I will also be honest with you. Therefore, I must apologize. I made an error in my previous post. I said the vav prefix made it a past perfect. Exactly wrong. It should have be future imperfect. It has no impact on the root analysis, so we still end up at the same place, but I wanted to clear that up. Sorry.
Anyway, yes, I am familiar with Koniuchowsky’s argument, and I am not impressed. Let me see if I can break this down for you into the pivotal issues.
Rabbi Koniuchowsky (hereinafter just RK) makes an argument from uniqueness of the word form that it must have a special meaning, and that meaning must be “mixed.” As I said before, there is nothing about the form of the word that requires a special interpretation. It is simply a Niphal conjugation of “to bless.”
Nevertheless, RK attempts to justify a special treatment for the term as conjugated because, he claims, several Talmudic authorities may use the word as possibly meaning “grafted/mixed.” However, only one of those authorities even begins to make a case, and even that one instance is embroiled in controversy.
Nevertheless, let’s review his offers of proof to see what we can make of them.
1. Rashbam.
In what I think is probably the best argument for “grafted,” the medieval rabbi Rashbam argues that the root here was not “b-r-k” at all, but a rare passive form of b-r-kh, which means “to kneel.” From this he abstracts kneeling to bending, and from bending he posits an agricultural use where a vine is bent into the ground to produce a new shoot, viewing it as a step in the grafting process.
However, other rabbinical scholars have reviewed his work and found it unconvincing.
For example, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, one of the top thinkers of medieval rabbinical studies, openly disagreed with Rashbam, saying, “A great scholar wrote in his book that ‘they shall bless themselves by you’ means ‘to graft’ other nations onto your stock. I don’t know where he got this from.”
I agree with Rabbi Ezra. The inferences are too attenuated, too stretched out and weak, to have any authority. The strongest case is that the root is still simply b-r-k, “to bless,” set in passive form.
2. Babylonian Talmud, Nashim, Tractate Sotah 43a
The controversial section RK relies on for his “proof,” in English, is this:
“it is all one whether he planted, bent or grafted it, …”
But if you go to the Hebrew, b-r-k is never translated “grafted” in this passage. Instead, the word translated “grafted” above comes from a form of the root r-k-b. b-r-k does appear, but in proper sequence it is translated “bent,” suggesting it might be derived from b-r-kh, not b-r-k.
If you want to check this out, you can see the Hebrew here:
http://www.e-daf.com/index.asp
Just select the Tractate Sotah 43a from the dropdowns above. They also provide a link to an English translation of the folio.
So what was RK thinking? If he’s a good, honest man, he probably is just using the wrong reference, or else he took the words out of order in a moment of carelessness. It happens. But it still works against him, because this passage actually shows r-k-b is the root you would expect to be used in Genesis if mixing or grafting was really in view. Thus, he inadvertently disproves his own theory.
Inasmuch as I have been unable to verify that any other Talmudic references to “graft” (there are at least 10) are based on the Niphal form of b-r-k, I see no reason to rely on that line of evidence, at least until further, better proof is offered.
There is more to say, but I think the essential points are on the table, and I’d rather not drag this part of the discussion any longer than necessary. For the next round, I’d like to discuss your views of the Gospel. I have a copy of your ebook, and when I have read it, perhaps we can resume the conversation. It may take a few days. I will contact you by freepmail if you are interested in continuing. Just let me know.
Peace,
SR
Thank you for you civil reply.
I am in agreement with most of it. It wasn’t clear earlier that you were dividing the leaders from the congregation in your comments.
I do not believe that Christianity and religion are the same thing.
Unless there might be other FReepers interested in our dialog we could have our exchange through private email, which I prefer or private post. I am EXTREEMLY interested in your feedback. I have spent 22 years in this realm of the Hebrew Roots studies without finding anyone who would give a studied counter point. You seem to be very equipped in understanding to know where I am coming from so I don't have to lay out the preliminaries. Thank you for your offer. I am a Bible teacher and take that position with a healthy respect and reverence of Yahweh's Word. I would NEVER want to teach error. Thank you for your assistance.
I apologize for the delay. I wanted to let you know I am working on a full response, but as with anything worthwhile, it is proving to be labor-intensive. Which is all good. I don’t mind. But it is taking some time, so I ask your indulgence as I continue to work on it. I will let you know when I’m ready. Freepmail is OK as a way to do this. I also have a blog I’m just getting started. We could take it over there. Its called, not surprisingly, http://www.springfieldreformer.com/. It has zero exposure right now, so the conversation will be relatively private. But that could change, if anybody ever decides to go there besides me. It is to laugh. But I will leave the choice of venue up to you.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.