Lost in Translation, Part 2

Nov 16, 2024 | Bible Study, Ancient Writings | 0 comments

Many who cherish the Scriptures and wish to deepen their understanding of the Word often find themselves frustrated. The overwhelming number of Bible translations available today and conflicting doctrinal positions taken by various denominations add to the frustration. As a result, much of what God wants to communicate to His children is often lost in translation.

Bible translation efforts have been going on for over 2,500 years. The herculean task of making the Bible available in many languages naturally complicates things. Textual criticism, or the art of restoring ancient writings to their original form is just one of the challenges that translators faced during this time.

Writing for Encyclopedia Britannica, Edward John Kenney¹ explains how this process can get rather complicated:

Textual criticism, properly speaking, is an ancillary academic discipline designed to lay the foundations for the so-called higher criticism, which deals with questions of authenticity and attribution, of interpretation, and of literary and historical evaluation … The methods of textual criticism, insofar as they are not codified common sense, are the methods of historical inquiry. Texts have been transmitted in an almost limitless variety of ways, and the criteria employed by the textual critic—technical, philological, literary, or aesthetic—are valid only if applied in awareness of the particular set of historical circumstances governing each case.

As mentioned in Part 1 of this article, other challenges faced by translators and readers alike include language nuances, word choice, contextual considerations, cultural differences, theological bias, and transliteration issues.

Transliteration Issues

When words are transliterated, or converted letter-by-letter from one script to another, the original meaning may not be conveyed at all, especially with names or specific terms. As they navigate these challenges, translators attempt to create versions that are both accurate and accessible to their audiences. Here is a list of the many challenges they face:

1. Phonetic Differences: Different languages have unique sounds that may not have direct equivalents in others. Translators must decide how to represent these sounds accurately, which can lead to variations in spelling and pronunciation.
2. Cultural Context: Certain words or names may carry specific cultural meanings that are difficult to convey in another language. Translators must consider the cultural significance and find ways to express it appropriately.
3. Consistency: Maintaining consistency in transliteration across various texts and contexts can be challenging, especially when dealing with proper names or terms that appear in different parts of the Bible.
4. Historical Variations: The historical context of the original language can affect transliteration. Some names may have been transliterated in various ways over time, leading to confusion about which version to use.
5. Audience Understanding: Translators must consider the familiarity of their audience with certain terms. A transliteration that works well in one cultural context may not be understood in another.
6. Theological Implications: Certain transliterations may carry theological weight or implications that can influence interpretation. Translators need to be mindful of how their choices may affect the understanding of key concepts.
7. Technical Limitations: Some languages may lack the necessary characters or symbols to accurately represent certain sounds, requiring creative solutions that may not fully capture the original pronunciation.

Hebrew and English differ significantly in how they convey meaning, particularly in terms of precision and nuance. Here are some key points highlighting these differences that add to the list of challenges:

Root System

Hebrew is built on a root system, where most words derive from three-consonant roots. This structure allows for a rich interconnection between words and concepts. For example, the root “k-t-v” (or “katav”) relates to writing, but words derived from it can mean to write, letter, or scripture — each having its particular nuance. English on the other hand, often relies on prefixes and suffixes, which can dilute the direct connection between words.

Contextual Meaning

Hebrew words often have multiple meanings that depend heavily on context. A single Hebrew word can convey various shades of meaning that may require several English words to express fully. For example, the Hebrew word shalom can mean peace, completeness, or welfare, depending on how it is used.

Verb Forms

Hebrew verbs convey tense and aspect differently than English. The Hebrew verb system includes aspects that indicate the nature of the action (completed, ongoing, habitual), which can be more precise than past, present, and future tenses in English.

Gender and Number

Hebrew nouns and adjectives are gendered and can vary in form based on number (singular or plural), which can provide additional layers of meaning. English nouns are generally gender-neutral, and while it has plural forms, it lacks the same level of grammatical gender distinction.

In Hebrew, the word “Elohim” (אֱלֹהִים) is a fascinating example of how nouns can be gendered and vary in form. “Elohim” is a plural masculine noun that can mean God, gods, judges, or angels.

According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament:

This word,³ which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either ‘el or eloah for the true God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Cultural Nuances

Many Hebrew words carry cultural or theological significance that may not have direct equivalents in English. For instance, the word “mitzvah” refers not just to a commandment but carries connotations of duty and ethical behavior that might require a more elaborate explanation in English.

Idiomatic Expressions

Hebrew has idiomatic phrases that may not translate well into English. Understanding this requires not just a translation of words but an understanding of cultural context and connotation.

Overall, while English is a versatile language, it often lacks the precision and depth found in Hebrew, especially when it comes to conveying complex ideas or emotions. This is why many translators and scholars emphasize the importance of understanding the original Hebrew text when interpreting biblical passages.

Hebrew Names Matter

As was mentioned earlier, some words or names may hold deeper cultural meanings that get obscured or lost when transliterated. Glaring examples of this can be seen in the transliterated name given to Adam’s spouse and the use of substitutions of LORD for YHWH’s name.

All About Eve

The name Eve comes from the Hebrew word Chavah, which is derived from the root chayah (חיה), meaning “to live” or “to give life.” In the Book of Genesis, she is named by Adam, who declares, “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23), and later, she is referred to as “Eve” in Genesis 3:20, where it says, “Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living.” But the the first man Adam really name her Eve?

The transliteration of “Chavah” to “Eve” in modern Bible translations reflects the tradition of using the Anglicized version of names for easier reading and understanding. This practice is common in many translations.  The intention was to make the text more accessible to English-speaking audiences. While “Eve” is not a Hebrew name in the original sense, unfortunately it has become the accepted English equivalent in biblical contexts. So much is lost in transliteration.

Keep this in mind as you search the Scriptures:

In ancient Hebrew culture, names played a crucial role in shaping a person’s identity and defining the purpose of objects. The names assigned often carried prophetic significance. In Genesis (Bereishit), we see that YHWH brought the world into existence through His spoken words.⁴ These divine declarations not only initiated creation but also established its intended purpose. Therefore, things are truly defined by their names; their essence is tied to what they are called.

The names of YHWH (יהוה) and His Son Yeshua (ישוע)

Yeshua often criticized the religious leaders of his time for prioritizing human traditions over the commandments of Yah. His teachings emphasized the need for genuine faith and adherence to his Father’s commandments rather than mere ritualistic observance. In this light, traditions should not overshadow the core principles and teachings found in Scripture.The Word is clear, we are not to bring the name of YHWH ( יהוה) to nothing.

You do not bring (or lift up, or take)⁵ the Name of YHWH your Elohim to naught, for YHWH does not leave the one unpunished who brings His Name to naught. 

Exodus 20:7 The Scriptures 2009

Yet, time and time again, most translations substitute LORD for YHWH’s name and Lord for Yeshua.  The distinction between LORD and Lord in Scripture primarily relates to how the names of Elohim are represented in English translations of the Bible, reflecting different Hebrew terms.

1. LORD (all capital letters) represents the Tetragrammaton, YHWH (יהוה), which is the personal name of El Most High in the Hebrew Bible. It is the specific covenant name of YHWH, and is often associated with His promises and covenant with His people.

2. Lord (capital ‘L’ and lowercase ‘ord’): This typically translates the Hebrew word “אדון” (Adon), which means “lord” or “master.” It can refer to human lords or masters as well as to God in a more general sense. In the New Testament, “Lord” is often used to refer to Yeshua, acknowledging His authority.

3. the Lord: This phrase can refer to either YHWH or to Yeshua, depending on the context. In the Old Testament, it usually refers to YHWH when “LORD” is used, while in the New Testament, it typically refers to Yeshua as “the Lord.”

Understanding these distinctions helps us grasp the theological implications and the relational aspects of how translators have subverted the names of YHWH and His Son in modern translations.

Alert! The term "LORD" can also refer to Baal in certain contexts, particularly in the Hebrew Bible. The word "Baal" (בעל) means "lord" or "master" in Hebrew and was used as a title for various Canaanite deities, including the storm god Baal, who was worshiped by some ancient peoples in the region.

Then there is the issue of the transliteration of specific names: Jesus instead of Yeshua. How did this happen?

The name “Jesus” is derived from the Hebrew name “Yeshua” (ישוע), which itself is a shortened form of  “Yehoshua” (יהושע), meaning “Yahuah is salvation.” The transition from “Yeshua” to “Jesus” involves several linguistic changes through different languages over time.

Hebrew to Aramaic: “Yeshua” was commonly used in the Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking communities during the time of Jesus. Aramaic was the language spoken by many Jews in Judea during the first century.

Aramaic to Greek: The New Testament was written in Greek, and the name “Yeshua” was rendered as “Iesous” (Ἰησοῦς) in Greek. This transliteration was necessary because Greek does not have the “sh” sound found in “Yeshua.”

Greek to Latin: From Greek, “Iesous” was adopted into Latin as “Iesus.” The Latin language became the official language of the Roman Empire and influenced many Western languages.

Latin to English: The name “Iesus” eventually made its way into Old English and evolved into “Jesus” as we know it today. The letter “J” was introduced into the English alphabet later, which is why “Jesus” instead of “Iesus”is used in most translations of the Bible. However, the letter “J” was not added to the alphabet until 1524.

In his book Come Out of Her My People, C.J. Koster traces the “non-original, substitute name Jesus” to Sun worship:

There is not a single authoritative reference source which gives the name Jesus or Iesous as the original name of our Savior! All of them admit that the original form of the Name was Jehoshua or Yehoshua. Why then, was it changed from Jehoshua or Yehoshua to Jesus? […] Two factors contributed greatly to the substitution and distortion of our Saviour’s Name. The first was the un-Scriptural superstitious teaching of the Jews that the Father’s Name is not to be uttered, that it is ineffable, that others will profane it when they use it, and that the Name must be “disguised” outside of the temple of Jerusalem.⁶ Because of the Father’s Name being in His Son’s Name, this same disastrous suppression of the Name resulted in them (? the Greeks) giving a Hellenized, in fact a surrogate name for our Saviour. He did warn us in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name…if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”

Koster also attributes our Savior’s name change to an anti-Judaism sentiment that prevailed amongst the Gentiles (nations). He claims that they wanted a savior, just not a Jewish one.

Koster claims:

The Hellenized theological school at Alexandria, led by the syncretizing, allegorizing, philosophizing, Gnostic-indoctrinated Clement and Origen, was the place where everything started to become distorted and adapted to suit the nations. The Messianic Belief, and its Saviour, had to become Hellenized to be acceptable to the Gentiles.

Although attempts have been made to justify the translation of the father’s Name and His Son’s Name, the fact is a personal name can’t be translated. Every person’s name remains the same in any language.⁷

A Quick Look at the Septuagint and Masoretic Translations

The Talmud and Midrash have greatly impacted Masoretic translations of the Scriptures.

The Talmud and Midrash are important to Rabbinic Judaism and serve different purposes with distinct characteristics. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah (compilation of oral laws) and the Gemara (commentary and discussions on the Mishnah).

Midrash refers to a genre of rabbinic literature that provides commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh). It includes various forms of interpretation, including narrative expansions, allegorical readings, and moral teachings. Both the Talmud and Midrash have significantly influenced the Masoretic (MT) of the Hebrew Bible, shaping both its interpretation and transmission.

The Masoretes were Jewish scribes and scholars who played a role in the copying, preservation, and transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 6th to the 10th centuries CE. They were primarily active in the regions of Israel and Babylon and were responsible for developing the Masoretic System of vocalization (adding vowel points) and cantillation marks to Hebrew script.⁸

Many Masoretes came from families with a long tradition of scholarship and scribal work. This lineage often played a role in their selection, as they were seen as custodians of the text. They underwent extensive training in the study of the Hebrew Scriptures, grammar, and the various traditions associated with the texts.

By the time the Masoretes were active, there was a growing call for a standardized version of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially as Jewish communities spread across different regions. This context likely influenced the selection of Masoretes who could contribute to this effort.

The Masoretic Text was developed over several centuries, but the final standardized version is generally dated around the 10th century CE. The most famous manuscript of the MT is the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1008 CE.

Greek Septuagint Translations

The term “Septuagint” generally refers to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures that was produced for the Jewish community in Egypt, particularly in Alexandria. The Septuagint (LXX) is believed to have originated in the 3rd century BCE. This translation was initiated during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (283–246 BCE), who sought to gather a comprehensive library, including Jewish texts.

This translation began with the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, which was completed around the 3rd century BCE. It laid the groundwork for the subsequent translation of other books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Over the following centuries, additional books were translated into Greek, resulting in a collection that included historical, poetic, and prophetic texts. By the 2nd century BCE, much of the Old Testament had been translated into Greek.

The Septuagint is known to have multiple textual traditions, as various Jewish communities may have produced their own translations or adaptations of the Hebrew texts. This resulted in variations in wording and content.

While the earliest complete manuscripts of the Septuagint date from the 4th century CE, the translation itself began in the 3rd century BCE, making it one of the oldest known translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The most authoritative version of the Septuagint (LXX) is generally considered to be the Codex Vaticanus, which dates to the early 4th century CE (approximately around 300-325 CE). The Codex Vaticanus is one of the oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Greek Bible, containing both the Old and New Testaments, and it is housed in the Vatican Library.

Another significant manuscript is the Codex Sinaiticus, which also dates to the 4th century CE and is considered one of the earliest complete manuscripts of the Christian Bible, including the Septuagint. The Codex Sinaiticus is currently held in the British Library. Both of these manuscripts are widely used for textual criticism of the Septuagint.

Alert! There are many differences between the two manuscripts. For example, some saythat Codex Vaticanus is a better manuscript for some parts of the New Testament, while Codex Sinaiticus is better for others. Others say that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two manuscripts differ than two consecutive verses in which they agree.

Final Thoughts

It is evident that us believers in search of Truth face many challenges in “rightly dividing” Yahuah’s Word as we navigate the narrow path of discipleship. Hopefully this information was presented in a way that inspires you to use all the research tools available to help you discover Truth. Trust in the Ruach’s ability to guide you and keep you from error.

Question everything and everyone. But most of all trust the process that Yah has ordained for your individual spiritual journey. Have faith that Yah’s Ruach will help you will reach the finish line and inherit the Kingdom prepared before the foundation of the world. Shalom.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Kennedy Professor Emeritus of Latin, University of Cambridge. author of The Classical Text; Lucretius; and others.

² “Texts in this connection are defined as writings other than formal documents, inscribed or printed on paper, parchment, papyrus, or similar materials.” Kenney, Edward John. “textual criticism”. Citation: Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Mar. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/textual-criticism. Accessed 12 November 2024.

³ Elohim (H430). Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1980, p. 93.

⁴ Genesis 1:3. The word for light is or (Strong’s H216) and means illumination or (concretely) luminary: -bright, clear, +day, light(-ning), morning, sun.

⁵ Strong’s G2983 lambano: to take in very many applications, literally and figuratively [probably objective or active, to get hold of;] H5375 nasah: to lift, in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively, absolutely and relatively:

⁶ Arnold, The Divine Name in Exodus 3:14, J.B.L., vol.24 (1905), p.144

⁷ In Mandarin Chinese, the name “Chao” (超) typically means “surpass” or “exceed.” In English, “Chao” can be misinterpreted as “chaos,” which has a completely different meaning related to disorder or confusion. This can lead to misunderstandings about the person or their cultural background.

⁸ The original Hebrew script was written without vowels. Nikkud refers to a system of punctuation marks, or diacritical signs, used in Hebrew to indicate vowels and distinguish between different pronunciations of letters. These marks are often placed above or below Hebrew consonant symbols.

Lost in Translation

Nov 12, 2024 | Ancient Writings, Bible Study | 0 comments

The phrase “lost in translation” deeply resonates with every dedicated Bible student. This idiomatic expression encapsulates the profound ways in which the intent of the ancient writers of scripture can be distorted when expressed in a different language, style, or format. But there’s more to it than just that.

Contemporary Bible translation initiatives are rooted in the historical missionary movement that accelerated near the end of the 18th century. These evangelistic efforts resulted in the establishment of numerous Bible societies that collaborated with churches and councils to spread the Gospel. Additionally, the development of translation studies in academia, the impact of secular translation theories, and copyright regulations have all played significant roles in shaping how our Bibles are written.

With this in mind, let’s explore how modern Bible translations can occasionally distort our comprehension of the Scriptures’ true messages. We pray this information enriches your devotional time as you engage with Yah’s word.

Translation and Interpretation Dilemmas

As we study the remarkable history of the Patriarchs, the admonitions of the Prophets, and Yeshua’s instructions for living, we often encounter impediments to our understanding. These challenges are further complicated by the overwhelming number of Bible translations available today.

Currently, there are over 3,142 versions of the Bible in more than 2,073 languages, with translation efforts actively underway in 3,526 languages across 173 countries. According to Brittanica, in the 20th century “printed Christian Scriptures became available in the mother tongues of almost 99 percent of the world’s people.”

Given the vast array of choices, it is no surprise that many feel confused — especially those of us who are not proficient in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. This presents a considerable challenge for believers who aspire to understand and live out the truth of Yah’s word.

Here is a list of the challenges we all face:

• Language nuances: Different languages have unique expressions, idioms, and cultural references that may not translate directly.
• Word choice: Translators may try to choose words that best convey the original meaning, but their choices can vary widely. For example, a word might have multiple meanings in the original language of Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic which leads to differing interpretations.
• Contextual considerations: The context in which a passage was written is crucial. When context is wrongly perceived or interpreted, we can walk away with a distorted understanding.
• Cultural differences: Culture influences how texts are interpreted. What makes sense in one culture may not in another, thus altering the intended message.
• Theological bias: Translators are people. Their theological viewpoints influence their choices — consciously or unconsciously shaping how certain passages are ultimately rendered.
• Transliteration issues: When words are transliterated (converted letter by letter from one script to another), the original meaning may not be conveyed at all, especially with names or specific terms.

Language Nuances

In Proverbs 25:21-22 and Romans 12:20-21 we are instructed to show kindness toward people who mistreat us. In doing so we are told that we are effectively ‘placing burning coals on their head.’ But is this the message the writer intended, or is there something more to this unique expression?

At first blush, the message seems to suggest a motive that is incompatible with Yeshua’s instructions regarding loving our enemies.¹ However, if you connect this with the actions of a high priest on the Day of Atonement it makes sense because it is all about forgiveness.

And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before YHWH, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil.

Leviticus 16:12

When we reward evil with good it brings a burning shame to the instigator. The shame eventually does its work, burning and melting their heart. This makes way for repentance and ultimately thanksgiving, which rises as incense to Yah’s throne. In this way, we overcome evil with good.

Unfortunately many interpret the ‘burning coals on the head’ outcome as being a form of vengeance on our part, which is incompatible with the instruction in verse 21 to do good.

Here is another example. In Exodus 21: 24-25 it reads:

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound stripe for stripe.

This translation in English leaves little room for nuance. but if you know the context, it makes perfect sense. It is not about barbaric retribution. It is not saying to cut off someone’s hand if he or she is guilty of cutting off yours.

While often interpreted as advocating for savage retaliation, it was intended to limit the severity of punishment by establishing a system of proportional justice. In other words, the punishment for a crime should be equal to the harm caused by said crime.

In Matthe 5:38 Yeshua quotes these verses as representing the spirit of the Law as he illustrates the ‘letter’ and the ‘spirit’.

The purpose was to protect the community. The believer is therefore not sanctioned to pluck out an ‘eye for an eye’, but show love for his enemies and forgive all injuries. The goal was to make both parties whole.

Word Choice

As we study the Scriptures we must be sensitive to word choices used in the various translations.

To illustrate, we will look at some examples of Greek words translated into English.² (You will have to draw your own conclusions based on context.)

In Revelation 21:1, when John says he saw a new heaven and new earth, what did he mean? Was he referring to them as being brand new or something that had been refreshed or remodeled?

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

Berean Study Bible

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed ayay; and there was no more sea.

King James Version

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

New King James Version

All three translations begin with the Greek word kai (καί).3 According to HELPS word study, “kai is the most common NT conjunction, used over 9,000 times — and (also), very often, moreover, even, indeed (the context determines the exact sense). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines it as ‘and, even, also or namely.’

The word for ‘new’ used in all three verses kainos (καινός). In Greek, the words kainos and neos (νέος) both translate as ‘new’⁴ in English, but they have different nuances and uses. Kainos⁵ refers to something new in the sense of being fresh, novel, or different from what has been previously known or experienced. It often implies a qualitative change or a newness that brings about a transformation; new in quality (innovation) fresh in development or opportunity — [that is] ‘not found exactly like this before.’

The word translated as ‘first’ is protos⁶ (πρῶτος), which carries the meaning of first, beginning, best, or chief; foremost (in time, place, order r importance) — before, beginning, best chief(-est), first (of all), or former.⁷

The word for ‘passed away’ in the verse is aperchomai⁸ (ἀπέρχομαι) which Strong’s Concordance tells us means ‘to go away, go after.’ Sea used in the verse is thalassa (θάλασσα). As for usage, we get this from Strong’s:

(a) the sea, in contrast to the land, (b) a particular sea or lake, e.g. the Sea of Galilee (Tiberias), the Red Sea.

As you can see, this seemingly simple verse may be saying more than what the English translation/transliteration implies. As we read along, questions we have to ask ourselves include:

1. Does this particular vision follow in chronological order from previous visions in Chapters 18-20?
2. By ‘new’ does John mean a refurbished earth or something entirely brand new?
3. From a biblical cosmology perspective, is the ‘sea’ that is ‘no more’ referring to the waters above the firmament (Genesis 1:7) or is he speaking of a ‘sea’ like Galilee or the Red Sea?

Food for thought.

Contextual Considerations

Context is crucial to Bible study for several reasons:

1. Understanding meaning. The meaning of a verse or passage can change significantly based on its context. This includes the surrounding verses, the overall chapter, and the book in which it is found. Knowing the historical, cultural, and literary context helps to clarify the intended message.
2. Avoiding Misinterpretation: Taking verses out of context can lead to misunderstandings and misapplications. Context helps prevent cherry-picking verses to support personal beliefs or agendas, ensuring that interpretations align with the broader narrative and teachings of Scripture.
3. Grasping Authorial Intent: Understanding the background of the author, including their purpose and audience, provides insight into why certain topics are addressed and how they are framed. This helps readers appreciate the nuances of the text.
4. Recognizing Literary Devices: The Bible employs various literary forms, such as poetry, parables, prolepsis, and apocalyptic literature. Recognizing these forms and their conventions is essential for accurate interpretation and application.
5. Theological Consistency: Context helps maintain theological consistency across Scripture. By considering how a passage fits within the entire biblical narrative, we can better understand core doctrines and how they relate to one another.

In short, context enriches Bible study by providing clarity, depth, and accuracy, which allows for a more meaningful engagement with the text.

Cultural Differences

Culture influences how Scripture is interpreted. What makes sense in one culture may not in another culture, thus altering the intended message. Acknowledging and understanding these cultural differences is essential for modern believers to interpret Scripture accurately and apply its teachings meaningfully in their lives. Engaging with historical and cultural context enriches one’s faith and deepens the understanding of Yah’s Word.

Some Bible verses might be misinterpreted by today’s English-speaking readers due to a gap in cultural understanding and ignoring the context. Here is one example.

But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

Matthew 5:39

The best way to examine this verse is to analyze it in the context of the verse that precedes it and the three that follow.

You have heard that it was said, ‘eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’⁹ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Potential Misinterpretation: In Western culture, verse 39 is often understood as promoting passivity or non-resistance to aggression. In the cultural context of first-century Israel, a slap to the cheek was not just a physical assault; it was also a significant social insult. In Arab cultures, throwing a shoe at someone was also regarded as the ultimate insult.

The general principle that Yeshua laid down was that we are not to resist evil or set ourselves against an evil person who is injuring us. However, our Master did not intend to teach that we are to see our families murdered, or be murdered ourselves, rather than resist the attacker. Self-defense is justified when a life is in danger.

Here, Yeshua confines himself to smaller matters, things of comparatively trivial interest, and says that in these matters it is better to suffer the wrong done than to enter into strife and lawsuits. Rather than contend and fight, we should take it patiently and turn the other cheek.

Ancient Hebrew culture had detailed laws regarding ritual purity, including regulations about food (Leviticus 11:1-3, Deuteronomy 14:3-4), menstruation (Leviticus 15:19-20, Leviticus 12:2-5), and contact with the dead (Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 19:11). These laws dictated much of daily life and religious observance tied to covenant duties.

In modern North America, where such strict purity codes are largely absent, the emphasis on cleanliness and ritual purity can seem strange or overly meticulous. This can lead to confusion regarding their significance and practice in some of today’s Torah observant circles. This is especially true in faith communities that believe that Yeshua did away with the law.

Theological Biases (Matthew 28:19)

The Bible tells us to rightly divide the word of truth.¹⁰ The Greek word for ‘rightly divide’ used here is orthotomeo, which has several meanings, including ‘to cut straight’, ‘to proceed on straight paths’, and ‘to teach the truth directly and correctly.’

So how can we be sure we are correctly understanding what is written? We must rely on the Set-apart Spirit (Holy Spirit) to give us discernment and compare scripture with scripture.

Before his ascension into his High Priesthood, Yeshua told his followers that the Set-apart Spirit, which the Father would send, would “teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance.”¹¹

He that does not love me does not keep my words, and the word which ye have heard is not mine, but of the Father who sent me. I have spoken these things unto you, being yet present with you. but the Comfoter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all the things that I have said unto you.

John 14: 24-26 Jubilees Bible

It is through the Spirit’s indwelling in us that we receive the very mind of Messiah — the mind of the Spirit.¹²

A Few Words About the Spirit

The idea that the Holy Spirit is a divine person was not acknowledged by the authors of the Bible and only surfaced several centuries after the completion of the New Testament. Tertullian, an early church theologian, was among the first to advocate this notion. He is known for introducing the term “Trinity” (Latin: “Trinitas”) and for describing the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct persons within one Godhead.

The doctrine of the Trinity was formally established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD and further clarified at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, during which the Nicene Creed was created, affirming the divinity of the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son. However, Hebrew scholars studying the references to the Spirit in the Old Testament have consistently viewed the Holy Spirit as the power of God rather than a distinct person.

So, how does the Bible portray the Holy Spirit if it is not a person? The Spirit represents a crucial aspect of Elohim—it is the agency through which YHWH the Father and Yeshua the Son both work. The following scripture verses support this understanding:

• 2 Timothy 1:7
• Luke 1:35
• Luke 4:14
• Acts 1:8
• Acts 10:38
• Romans 15:19
• 2 Peter 1:4
• Galatians 2:20
• Psalm 139:7-10

Let us continue with examining how theological bias can influence your understanding of Matthew 28:19 by comparing a couple of translations of this verse, frequently cited as a proof-text¹³ for the doctrine of the Trinity. Keep in mind that verses used in proof-texting may sometimes distort the original intent of the author and allow for the introduction of personal presuppositions, biases, or agendas. Moreover, the passage being cited may not even support the argument being made when considered in its entirety. This phenomenon is evident in the use of Matthew 28:19 (in isolation) to defend the Trinity.

To evaluate whether this verse truly supports the assertion that God is “three persons in one”¹⁴ we will examine two translations of this verse. We will also provide other scripture verses that help put it in its proper context.

Young’s Literal Translation reads:

having gone, then, disciple all the natons, baptizing them — to the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The New King James Translation reads:

Go therefore and make diciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

The Young’s Literal and the New King James versions differ in the use of ‘in’ and ‘to’ when describing the baptism rite. The difference between ‘to’ and ‘in’ in the context of baptism can imply subtle distinctions in meaning regarding the relationship between the individual and the Creator’s family. Here is a closer look at these distinctions:

Using ‘to’ suggests a movement or direction toward something. In this case, it indicates that the act of baptism is a step taken by the individual to enter into a relationship with Yah and become part of His family. It emphasizes the intention or purpose behind the baptism, highlighting that the individual is making a conscious decision to join or commit to Yah’s family.

The use of ‘in’ implies a state of being or existence within something. It suggests that baptism signifies an inclusion into Yah’s family. This wording emphasizes the transformative aspect of baptism, indicating that the individual is not just moving toward a relationship with the Father, but is entering into a new identity and community as part of His family.

The question one must then ask is this: Does Matthew 28:19 describe the nature of God, or is it describing the process of baptism that allows us to enter Yah’s family, a process that involves the Father, Son, and Set-apart Spirit?

Following genuine repentance and baptism, hands are laid on the repentant individual, allowing him or her to receive the Ruach directly from Eloah.¹⁵ (Acts 8:14-24) Why are the Father, Son, and Set-apart Spirit referenced in this process? Because at baptism, we enter into a covenant relationship with God the Father. The sacrifice of Yeshua enables this covenant relationship. The Set-apart Spirit is the means through which the Father and Son facilitate all of this.

Matthew 1:20 reinforces the idea that the Set-apart Spirit is not a separate being, but rather the divine power of Eloah. Yeshua was conceived by the Spirit, yet he consistently prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father (and our Father). Again, the Spirit serves as the agent¹⁶ or power through which the Father brought forth Yeshua as His Son, not a distinct person or being.¹⁷

From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

The OT [Old Testament] clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power.¹⁸

Let’s also consider these verses:

And having been immersed, יהושע went up immediately from the water, and see, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of Elohim descending like a dove and coming upon him, and see, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I delight.”

Matthew 3: 16-17 The Scriptures 2009

The favour of the Master יהושע Messiah, and the love of Elohim, and the fellowship of the Set-apart Spirit be with all of you. Amen.

2 Corinthians 13:14 The Scriptures 2009

Throughout the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is spoken of in ways that demonstrate it is not a divine person. The Spirit is regarded as a gift from the Father without limit. The Spirit can be quenched, poured out, stirred up within us, and is involved in baptism. The Spirit has other monikers: ‘the guarantee of our inheritance’ and ‘the spirit of wisdom and revelation.

By way of contrast, the Almighty Elohim and His Son are consistently compared to human beings in their likeness, form, and emotional sensitivities. The Spirit is represented symbolically — as breath, wind, fire, water, oil, a dove, or as a down payment on eternal life.

If Eloah was a Triune being then the Apostle Paul would have certainly addressed ‘him’ in his standard greeting in the letters he wrote to the assemblies in which he ministered. Yet there is no evidence of this occurring. Paul consistently begins with a variation of “Grace to you and peace from El our Father and the Master Yeshua HaMashiach.” The Spirit is never mentioned. The same can be said of Peter in salutations in both his epistles.

In Part 2 of “Lost in Translation”, we will examine how transliteration can impede our ability to ‘rightly divide’ and understand Yah’s word. We will also take a quick look at the Septuagint and Masoretic translations of the Bible.

FOOTNOTES

¹ Luke 6:27-28

² American (USA) English

³Strong’s G2532

⁴ Another Greek word for ‘new’ in the Scriptures is neos (νέος). This word generally refers to something young or recent in age. Neos focuses more on the chronological aspect rather than the qualitative change implied by kainos.

⁵ Strong’s G2537

⁶ Strong’s G4413

⁷ HELPs Word Study defines protos as prṓtos (an adjective, derived from 4253 /pró, “before, forward”) – first (foremost). 4413 /prṓtos (“first, foremost”) is the superlative form of 4253 /pró (“before”) meaning “what comes first” (is “number one”).

⁸ Strong’s G565

⁹ Yeshua finds no fault with this rule as applied by magistrates. However, instead of confining it to judges, the Yahudim (Jews) extended it to private conduct and made it a rule by which to exact revenge. See Exodus 21:12-36 for laws related to personal injury.

¹⁰ 2 Timothy 2:15

¹¹ John 14:26

¹² Romans 8:27

¹³ Proof-texting is the practice used to establish a proposition for exegesis.

¹⁴ The doctrine of the Trinity holds that there is one God in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit, who are coequal and coeternal.

¹⁵ The Hebrew word Eloah (אֱלוֹהַּ) means “God” or “the singular form of Elohim”. It can also be written as El Eloah, which translates as “God God”. This combination is used to emphasize El’s power, strength, and compassion.

¹⁶ Read Chapter Nine of The Gospel Worth Dying For titled  “Agency and Prolepsis” for a detailed explanation of what is meant by ‘agency.’

¹⁷ See also Zechariah 4:6, Micah 3:8, 2 Timothy 1:7, Luke 1:35, Luke 4:14, Acts 1:8, Acts 10:38, Romans 15:19

¹⁸ New Catholic Encyclopedia. (1965). God’s spirit. In New Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 13, p. 574). McGraw-Hill.