Hebrew Gospel Pearls #32 – The Seduction of Sin

You are listening to Hebrew Gospel Pearls with Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon's Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

Nehemia: This is where it’s very dangerous using translations. You say, “But they all agree, clearly that’s what the original says. I don’t know the original language,” you say, “but they all agree.” Well, they all agree because they cribbed off of each other, they were copying from each other. Now, maybe they are correct, but you can’t assume that just because they all say the same thing. Translations can be copying from each other, and they often do.

Nehemia: Shalom and welcome to Hebrew Gospel Pearls episode 32. Today we’re going to be talking about Matthew chapter 5 verses 29 to 30. I’m so excited about this, Keith!

Keith: Well, get started! Let’s read!

Nehemia: This is actually some verses where we have to talk about the principle of hyperbole, which is a fancy way of saying “exaggeration”. The fancy way of saying, “I caught a fish… this big!”

Keith: Right!

Nehemia: Alright, so let’s read it.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: Or at least that’s one interpretation.

Keith: Let me read the English first.

Nehemia: Oh, yeah.

Keith: (Matthew 5) 29 and 30, “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

Nehemia: Okay, what were those two translations you just read?

Keith: NASB.

Nehemia: Well, there were two translations.

Keith: No. There were two verses, “If your right eye”, “If your right hand”.

Nehemia: Wait a minute… okay! 29 has an interesting thing there that I guess I didn’t realize until this very moment. “Ve’im yesit’cha ein’echa” or “eincha ha’yamin, naker otah ve’tashlich’eha mimeca.” “If your right eye seduces you,” “entices you”, “pluck it out and throw it away from you.”

And verse 30, “V’chen im yesit’cha yad’cha, cha’toch otah.” “And if your hand entices you, cut it off.” “Tov lecha she’tafsid echad me’avarecha mi’kol guf’cha b’gehinom.” “It is better you should lose one of your limbs than your entire body in hell.”

Keith: So, the two verses in English, they repeat the…

Nehemia: Yes, the “hell” only appears in verse 30, not in verse 29. Now let’s look at the manuscripts, because one of the things we did with this, and the other sections in this series is look at all the available manuscripts. And I’m looking to see, does “hell” appear in any manuscripts? I didn’t realize that it’s missing in verse 29 in the Hebrew, but there in the Greek. And yeah, it’s not there… that’s really interesting. It’s not in any of the manuscripts in verse 29, only in verse 30.

That’s interesting, I don’t know that it’s all that significant, because you could take the end of verse 30 and say that’s the summation of both verses. So, maybe there’s a question of why is it repeated.

Keith: But in the Greek it’s repeated, yes.

Nehemia: Okay. What do we want to start talking about here? I think I want to start with this whole idea of… let’s start with the grammatical issue. Can we do that?

Keith: Yes, please.

Nehemia: And this will be an opportunity to teach a little bit of Hebrew grammar.

Keith: Excellent.

Nehemia: So, Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew, they’re Semitic languages, or two dialects of a Semitic language. And Semitic languages are a family that include Arabic and Aramaic and Ge’ez, which is the ancient language of Ethiopia, and Akkadian, which is an ancient language of Iraq, of northern Iraq. Those are all Semitic languages, and there are others, and they are languages in which there is no word for “it”.

So, in English, which is a Germanic language, there are three genders. And I don’t mean “gender” like in New York City where there’s like 32 genders. I mean grammatical genders. That word’s been hijacked by people with an agenda, and leaving that agenda aside, the word “gender” has referred to a grammatical concept that exists in many languages. There are words that may not be male or female, but they’re the male gender or the female gender, and grammatically they’re treated as male and female.

So, English has three genders, male, female, and what’s called neuter, so that’s “he”, “she”, and “it”. But Semitic languages only have two genders, male and female. And every word, every noun in the language is either male or female. So, in English, there are things that are neither male nor female, like “pencil.” “Pencil” isn’t male or female, it’s neuter.

Keith: Cup.

Nehemia: “Cup” is “it,” “pencil” is “it”. “Ship” is sometimes “it”, but sometimes it’s “she”. And a “car” is sometimes “she” in English, or boat; it could be “she”. But in Hebrew every single noun has a gender – male or female. And why is that important? Because we see this in Hebrew Matthew here, there’s a bit of confusion. It says, “Ve’im yesit’cha ein’cha ha’yamin naker otah.” “If your right eye entices you, pluck it out.”

So, let’s start with the verb. “Entices” is a verb, and it’s a verb that’s in the future form. And in most of the manuscripts it’s “yesit’cha”, and in two of the manuscripts its “hesit’cha”. It doesn’t matter. All the manuscripts have the verb as masculine, but then the pronoun is “naker otah” “pluck her out.” What’s “her?” Referring to the eye. Now, is “eye” masculine? Or is “eye” feminine? We’ll save that for a second; we’re going to come back to that.

There are three manuscripts, W, A, and J, which are very, very, closely related to each other, and all three of them, instead of “pluck her out”, they have “pluck him out.” So, they treat “eye” as masculine, not only in the verb, which all the manuscripts do, but also in the pronoun.

And then it says, “ve’tashlich’eha”, “and throw her away” in most of the manuscripts, except in W, A, and J, where it has “ve’tashlich’ehu” “throw it away”.

So, what is going on? Why is there a confusion about the gender of ayin, the Hebrew word for “eye”? And what this has to do with… and look, this could be something that happened in transmission. Let’s say this was written in the 1st century; that doesn’t mean that this confusion was there in the 1st century. It’s been transmitted by scribe after scribe, after scribe, after scribe, copying, and some of those scribes were not speakers of Semitic languages. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language, probably for most Jews, in the 2nd or 3rd century CE, and then the last vestiges of spoken Hebrew as a native language were probably from the 9th or 10th century.

It continued as a spoken language of scholars throughout history; it never ceased. But when you’re speaking a language as a scholar and not your native language, there are things from your native language that bleed over, that spill over into the scholarly language, and one of those things could be this issue of gender.

So, I’m going to open up here a grammar, it’s called, A Hebrew Grammar by Livny and Kokhba. It’s a modern grammar, but it applies to a larger extent to Biblical Hebrew, and this aspect of it does. And it says, “La’shem shnei minim”, “The noun has two genders”, “zachar oh nekevah”, “masculine and feminine.” And basically, it then explains that every word that’s not feminine is masculine. So first we just need to know which of the words are masculine.

The most common rule – I don’t need to read Livny and Kokhba for this – the most common rule that most Hebrew speakers and people who learn Hebrew know is that anything that ends in “ah”, in Kamatz-Hey, not just any “ah”, the “ah” that is represented by the vowel Kamatz, 98%, 99% of those are going to be feminine.

So, “Torah” ends with Kamatz-Hey, and Torah is feminine. Ishah, “woman”, ends with Kamatz-Hey. Ishah is feminine. Most words that end in Kamatz-Hey are feminine; there are exceptions and that’s where things get a bit confusing.

Generally, Kamatz-Hey, the “ah” ending is feminine, and not Kamatz-Hey is masculine, except for all the exceptions! There are things that end in Kamatz-Hey that are masculine, and there are things that don’t end in Kamatz-Hey that are feminine. And the word for “eye” is an example of a word that does not end in Kamatz-Hey. It’s not ayinah, it’s ayin, but it’s still feminine.

So, here are the rules that Livny and Kokhba give, and the thing about Kamatz-Hey, that is there as, let’s see… that’s rule, it’s way at the end. First, they bring all the exceptions, and then they give the standard rule. The standard rule of Kamatz-Hey here is clause number 4, so it says, “Nouns that end in Hey, with the emphasis at the end of the word, or with Tav, which is not from the root.” And they bring examples, menorah, “candelabra”, or menora, we say in English menora, but it’s menor-ah with the emphasis on the “ah”, and its Kamatz-Hey. Mitzvah, “commandment”. Makheberet; makheberet doesn’t end in Kamatz-Hey, but it has this extra added Tav, which also indicates the feminine when it’s not part of the root. And then they bring the example of zavit, “angle”, where the Tav is also expressing the feminine.

So that’s the standard rule; the most common ones are Kamatz-Hey. There’s other ones with Tav, like makheberet, and then you have the exceptions, which is what he starts with. So, rule number 1, “The nouns ‘city’, ‘country’, and the names of cities and countries and the Earth are all feminine.” “Jerusalem” is feminine; why is “Jerusalem” feminine? Because that’s the rule. It’s an exception to the rule, but it’s such a common exception, it’s such a consistent exception, that it’s the rule now. It’s its own rule. “Egypt”, feminine; cities and countries are all feminine.

Rule number 2, this is very interesting… I learned this in kindergarten; literally, this rule I learned in kindergarten. It is, “The names of body parts that exist in pairs in living beings are feminine.” And there’s one exception that I’m not going to share on the program! It’s yeah… you’ll figured it out for yourself; it’s something men have that women don’t. And it exists in pairs.

So, ozen is “ear”, you don’t say ozen shome’a, you say ozen shoma’at, the “ear hears” and the verb is in the feminine. Or you can say oznayim g’dolot, “big ears” in the feminine as opposed to oznayim g’dolim, which would be an error. Ayin, “eye”, that’s one of the examples; and canaf, “wings”, so it’s not just human body parts.

And then rule number 3 is, “The name of objects that exists in a plural form.” Or, sorry, “that exists in a dual form.” So let’s back up for a second, we said there’s two genders in Hebrew, in Semitic languages – masculine and feminine. How many numbers are there in English? And by numbers, I mean singular or plural. You just have two, right?

Keith: Right.

Nehemia: Hebrew has three – singular, dual, and plural. Dual? So Semitic languages have a dual. So Mitzrayim, the Hebrew word for “Egypt”, doesn’t mean “the Egypt” it actually means “the two Egypt’s,” because it has the plural ending. And what are the two Egypt’s? Upper and Lower Egypt. And you say the same thing about “eyes”, einayim, is “two eyes”, the “-ayim” ending is dual. So, the Hebrew word for “shoes” is na’alayim, so the “-ayim” there tells you it’s feminine for this object.

Okay, so with all that, why is there this confusion? And I’m just going to call it a mistake in Hebrew Matthew, at least in some of the manuscripts of Hebrew Matthew, most of the manuscripts. Because the person who copied this manuscript wasn’t a native Hebrew speaker, and he saw the word ayin, which doesn’t end in Kamatz-Hey, doesn’t have a Tav at the end, and he got confused and assumed it was masculine. Although he knew it was feminine because the verb is. So, this is why I say it’s confused; the verb is masculine, but then the two pronouns are feminine. So, he knows it’s feminine, but he’s getting confused, because he sees this word that has a masculine appearance, and when he copies it, he makes a mistake.

And then you have W, A, and J, which are consistent and treat it as masculine. That’s what I would call a hypercorrection. What’s a hypercorrection? A hypercorrection is when you know the way you write or speak is a mistake, and so you correct it, but you don’t know exactly what the rule is, or you don’t always apply the rule correctly, and so you correct it even when it’s not wrong.

I love this example of hypercorrection, which is, in American English we have the letter H, and we say, “house”, “hill”, “horn”, “horse”. Well, in certain countries, where they speak English, and certain areas, they say, “-ouse”, “-orse”, “-ill”, they don’t pronounce the H. And then people come along from those cultures, and they say, “Well, I know we’re mispronouncing this as opposed to ‘standard’ English,” whatever that is, and so they put in an H where it doesn’t belong. So, they’ll say, “house”, “hill”, and then they’ll say, “herb” for “-erbs”, and then they’ll call the letter “Haitch”, because we know we drop it. So now whenever we drop the H sound, we put it in. So that’s a hypercorrection, and it’s such a hypercorrection that in some dialects of English it’s standard to say Haitch, but it started as a hypercorrection.

So, this is a hypercorrection. The scribe knows that there’s a mistake here, and so he changes… or he doesn’t know it’s a mistake, he thinks it’s supposed to be masculine, I suppose, and he changes otah “her”, to otoh for “eye”.

So, all that is this grammatical issue that shows you the complexity of these manuscripts. You have a mistake which is in almost all the manuscripts, and you have somebody who corrects the mistake, thinking he’s fixing it, but actually makes it worse. So now he doesn’t have the mistake once, he has it three times. He has it both in the verb, but he also has it in the two pronouns, “pluck him out and throw him away”, but “eye” is feminine. Alright, I know that’s a bit esoteric perhaps, but it gives us some of the complexity of dealing with these manuscripts and why it’s so important to look at the big picture of all the different manuscripts.

So, I’m going to let you lead off the next issue.

Keith: Well, when we see this, I do want to ask you this question. We actually split this… when we did this series first time through, this was one episode.

Nehemia: Yeah.

Keith: We had the connection between what happens in terms of adultery, which went to desiring, which meant “hand”, and these next two verses are related to those things causing you to do the same kind of thing, which could be to covet. Meaning all four, but we’ve separated it; now why did we separate it?

Nehemia: And in Hebrew, you could say it’s even more connected, because we have this discussion, frankly of sex, of sexual coveting, and then we have the verb in verse 29 and 30, and forget the issue that it’s the wrong gender, but the verb is “to entice”.

Keith: Exactly.

Nehemia: Which could have a sexual connotation in Hebrew.

Keith: Yes, yes.

Nehemia: So, your eye is enticing you, and your hand is enticing you, it’s enticing… And this is actually a metaphor throughout the Tanakh, where sin is described in sexual terms. It talks about your eye prostituting, it leads you astray into prostitution, or the eye prostitutes, meaning it’s looking after other gods. The way, maybe, a man’s eye might look after a prostitute, so instead of a prostitute, you’re looking after another God. So, there is this sexual connotation, or metaphorical usage, I suppose, in Biblical Hebrew, that’s being used here as well. So, they’re connected no doubt.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: 27 and 28, and 29 and 30 are a unit, but we broke them apart. First of all because we had more to say in 27 and 28 than we could even get to…

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: … and then a whole bunch more in 29 and 30.

Keith: Yeah.

Nehemia: But also, because it’s a sub-unit. So, here it’s talking about different body parts, “if they cause you to stumble,” in the Greek I think it is, “and they entice you, then get rid of them.”

Keith: Yes.

Nehemia: So, 29 and 30 are this sub-unit, and you could say it’s a continuation of 27 and 28. You’re looking after something, you’ve committed adultery in your heart by coveting it, by looking at it with your eyes and then coveting it, and so now you can get rid of that body part. That is the connection. It is a continuous thought, but it’s also a sub-thought here. It doesn’t have to be in this case; the eye is looking at a woman. The eye could be looking at an idol. The eye could be looking at somebody else’s property they want to steal.

Keith: Yeah.

Nehemia: The eye could be looking at all kinds of things that you want to do, and the hand as well.

Keith: It could steal, the hand could do either action of that.

Nehemia: Yeah, for sure.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: So, one thing I want to bring here, which is very interesting. Nelson pointed this out when we were doing the study. So, Delitzch, and Salkinson-Ginsburg, which are two translations; they both use another word. Say “another word”.

Keith: Another word.

Nehemia: Which is different than Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, for “entice”. So, Delitzch has, “Ve’im,” and again, maybe this is not what Delitzch has, but it’s the version of Delitzch that I have access to right now.

Keith: Study Partners will let us know.

Nehemia: Yeah, exactly. Post it in the comments if you pull up a version of Delitzch, or of Salkinson- Ginsburg, and your text has something else. Maybe there’s more than one edition. Maybe my edition has a corruption in it, that’s possible.

Delitzch has, “Ve’im yad’cha ha’yaminit tachshilcha katzetz otah ve’hashlech mim’cha.” “If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you.” And we have there a play on words; we have a word pun between tachshilcha and hashlech. It’s what we call metathesis, the order of the letters are switched, but they sound similar, tachshilcha and hashlech. And I’m quite certain that Delitzch, when he translated it that way from the Greek, he wanted it to sound more beautiful and maybe even be more memorable, so he introduced a word pun that’s not there in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew.

Salkinson-Ginsburg, “Ve’im yad’cha ha’yaminit tachshilcha, katzetzeha ve’hashlich’eha me’meca.” So, it’s even clearer in Salkinson-Ginsberg, the word pun tachshilcha and hashlich’eha, the same two words. And I’ve got to wonder… I mean, I don’t even wonder. It’s quite clear to me that one is consulting the other based on the way this is written; it seems too much of a coincidence that they’re using the same verbs. It could be a coincidence. Now, here’s an example where we have a word pun which isn’t in the original, at least in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew Hebrew…

Keith: In Shem Tov, yes.

Nehemia: Let’s look in the Greek actually, now I’m curious because I don’t remember. Is there a word pun in the Greek? And maybe they’re trying to reproduce something in the Greek. That could be the case. So, Matthew 5:29… so the word for “causes you to sin” is… what do we have in the Greek? Oh, it’s scandalidze.

Keith: That’s right!

Nehemia: “Scandalizes you” that’s where we get the word “scandal”. The reason that’s interesting is that in the Catalan Hebrew Gospels, Ebr. 100 in the Vatican, the translator into Hebrew didn’t know how to translate this word, so he just wrote escandalizatz, which is what’s in the Catalan, and a similar thing in the Greek, and in the Latin.

Alright, so we have scandalizatz, and then, “throw it away” is exele, so there really isn’t any kind of word pun… oh, bali a posu “and throw it away from you.” So, “take it and throw it away from you,” is what it says.

So, there’s no word pun there in the Greek, but there is in Delitzch and in Salkinson-Ginsberg. And so, here’s an example where you’ve got to be careful with word puns. Just because there’s a word pun doesn’t mean it’s a Hebrew original. Nobody claims, as far as I know, that Delitzch is the original Hebrew text, because Delitzch tells us that he translated it from Greek. And Salkinson-Ginsburg not only tells us they translated it from Greek, Salkinson tells us why he did it; because he found this very bad Hebrew translation in a bookshop, and he said, “Boy, we can do better than this!”

Keith: Do you think they were being creative with the word puns?

Nehemia: Absolutely! They were trying to beautify the text. They know about Hebrew word puns because they were great Hebrew scholars, and they’re trying to make it flow better and sound nicer. So, one or two Hebrew word puns could just be the work of the translator trying to beautify the text.

It could also be a coincidence. We have an example of a coincidence of a word pun in Genesis chapter 1. So it says, “She was called woman,” ishah “because she was taken from ish”. Ishah comes from the word ish, and she was called ishah because it’s the feminine of the word ish, the word for “man”. Well, it works in English too. “She was called wo-man, because she was taken from man.” It happens to work in English too; that’s a coincidence. So, you could have a text that’s full of word puns, and it not be original to that language. It could be the word puns were introduced by a translator.

Keith: Wow.

Nehemia: So, you’ve got to be very careful with the word puns. We definitely have Hebrew texts of the New Testament where there are word puns in the Hebrew and not in the original Greek, or Greek, that we know it was translated from in most cases. Or Latin in some cases it was translated from, or in that case it was translated from Catalan. And there are no word puns in the original language that it was translated from, and the word puns were introduced there because they’re such an inherent part of Hebrew writing. So, you’ve got to be very careful about word puns, and assuming if you find one, or two, or even ten word puns, that you have a text that was written in Hebrew.

Keith: Like Peter, Petros’s rock? Meaning that kind of thing?

Nehemia: Well, you have a word pun there both in the Hebrew and the Greek, and let’s assume that it was spoken in Hebrew.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: That’s an assumption, say “assumption”.

Keith: Assumption.

Nehemia: If we assume it was spoken in Hebrew and that Yeshua said to Peter, “You are a rock,” ev’en, and ev’neh, “I will build my house of prayer upon you,” is what it says in Hebrew Matthew, or some form of that in the original that was actually spoken, then the Greek is trying to reproduce that word pun. It says, “Oh! There’s a word pun here! Let me express that in a way that my readers will understand it, because they don’t know Hebrew.” Or even if they know Hebrew, they’re not going to like, “We have to go to a dictionary to figure out what this word is. Let’s reproduce that in the target language.”

So, there you have a word pun both in the Hebrew, that’s Matthew 16… both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, and that’s actually cited as a proof that Matthew was written in Greek, because it has a word pun. “Well, one word pun doesn’t prove it.” And you want the word puns to really be interwoven with the text, to be an inherent part of the text. The text doesn’t really make sense without them; this makes sense without it.

But it’s interesting that we have the word pun in Delitzch, we have the word pun in Salkinson-Ginsberg, and we don’t have it in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, and we don’t have it in the Greek. So, it’s a beautiful example of the word pun being introduced into the text by the translator for the purpose of, I guess, making it more beautiful.

Keith: Amen.

Nehemia: So, Catalan Ebr. 100, it says… and I want to show this, this is actually kind of cool.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: So, we decided to look at the Catalan. The Catalan has the word tascandeliza in this verse, and tas-, tes-, or tar-, or te-scandeliza, according to Haynes, who is an expert in Catalan. I’m not. He says it’s actually two words. Te scandaliza is something to the effect of “it leads astray” or something like that. So, the “it” is the “te” there; it’s clearly not a Hebrew word. It’s two Catalan words written as a single Hebrew word.

Keith: Okay.

Nehemia: So, we looked at that, and we found something really interesting in the Catalan, which is a bit surprising, and let me pull it up here. So, we found… first of all, there’s the word… actually that’s a different verse sorry. Here, he says, “Aval im ein’cha yemanit”, “If your right eye” “te scandaliza”, “it scandalizes you” or, “causes you to stumble,” “hotzi’a v’harkhica mim’cha”, “take it out and make it far from you” or, “cause to be far from you.”

So, what’s interesting there is this word here in the second line, “ein’cha”. It was originally written with a Yud after the Nun, making it ein’echa, “your eyes” and then the scribe came along, and he put a little line over the Yud to erase it. That was the way of saying, “This Yud is a mistake. It’s not the plural ein’echa, ‘your eyes’, it’s ein’cha, ‘your eye.’” And then just to bring home the point and make sure you knew to ignore that second Yud, he added vowels because there’s different vowels for “your eyes” versus, “your eye”. So, this is interesting.

What’s really interesting is that Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, in most manuscripts, has ein’echa in the plural, “your eyes”. Some of the manuscripts correct it and make it “your eye”, but most have “your eyes”, which is a mistake. And I have to wonder here if the Catalan didn’t have access to Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew and brought over this error from Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew into the Catalan. And it was then corrected independently, both in Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew, in some manuscripts, and in the Catalan. It’s a possibility; we don’t know.

Keith: When we go to the Plus, can we talk about how deep the possibilities go? I mean, is that a legitimate…?

Nehemia: Well, if it was just this example, I wouldn’t even bring this up. But there’s other examples that show connections between the Catalan and Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew.

Keith: Really?

Nehemia: Look, we saw a similar thing just now with Salkinson-Ginsberg and Delitzch. And off the top of my head, I don’t remember which one’s earlier. I want to say that Delitzch is earlier. Obviously – I shouldn’t say obviously – if we find more examples like this, like where they’re using the same word pun that they’ve introduced in the text, you’re left with the conclusion that one saw the work of the other…

Keith: Wow.

Nehemia: … and said, “I’m not going to start from scratch.” And look, this happens every day. When they do the New Revised Standard Version, they don’t start with a blank page, they start with the Revised Standard Version.

Keith: Sure.

Nehemia: And when they do the Revised Standard Version, they don’t start with a blank page, they start with an earlier revision of The King James Version. And The King James didn’t start with a blank page, they started with Tyndale’s translation. So, if you go through all those translations – and this is where it’s very dangerous using translations – you say, “But they all agree. Clearly that’s what the original says. I don’t know the original language,” you say, “but they all agree.” Well, they all agree because they cribbed off of each other, they were copying from each other. Now, maybe they are correct, but you can’t assume that just because they all say the same thing. Translations can be copying from each other, and they often do.

So, it’s very interesting things here. I really want to talk about what this verse means, because we didn’t even get to that. What is the significance of these verses? Is it really telling you to pluck out your eye? That’s the literal meaning. Is it really telling you to cut off your hand? That’s the literal meaning. In the Plus episode, we’ll explore some other possibilities.

Keith: So, we had a conversation. We are in prayer, and continuing to be in prayer, because this episode for our public folks brings us again to another ending, not ending point, not in terms of what we’re doing, but in terms of where we’re at right now. So, Nehemia, what do you see? How do you see this? What’s our hope? What’s our prayer? What would we like to see happen?

Nehemia: We’re going to continue in the Plus episode and talk about really what this verse means, and how to explain this, and there’s a few possibilities. One of the possibilities I never even imagined, but it was brought up by one of the scholars, and I’m like, “Wow, that’s intriguing.” And it could be correct.

We’re going to talk about that in the Plus episode, which if you support Makor Hebrew Foundation, you can go over and log into NehemiasWall.com and get access to all the Plus episodes that are on my website. Some of them are on yours.

Keith: All the evens.

Nehemia: The odd ones, the ones that are odd, are on Keith’s website because he’s an odd guy. And I’m the even guy, I’m all straight and even. And the even ones are on NehemiasWall.com.

Keith: Excellent.

Nehemia: So, go over, get the Plus episodes, get also what I call Support Team Studies. We just did this amazing study on what I call The Lying Pen of the Scribes.

Keith: Oh?

Nehemia: It’s one of the most important studies I’ve ever done.

Keith: Really?

Nehemia: It clarifies one of the most difficult verses in the Tanakh. Probably, you could say textually one of the most problematic verses, in a very broad sense, textually, it’s one of the most problematic verses. And I would have never guessed the answer. Once I found what I think the correct answer is from a rabbi in the 17th, 18th century, I was like, “How come I didn’t think of this? This is so obvious!” That’s over on NehemiasWall.com.

Keith: So, wait, so you’re telling me that there are presentations on Nehemias Wall that you call what?

Nehemia: Support Team Studies.

Keith: Beyond the Plus?

Nehemia: Absolutely. The Plus is included for me in the Support Team Studies for people who support Makor Hebrew Foundation. It’s a gift for those people to get access to that.

Keith: And you have all these other presentations?

Nehemia: Oh yeah, lots of teachings.

Keith: You know, you used to laugh at me years ago when I told you about the Premium Content Library. He used to laugh at me!

Nehemia: Keith was a visionary.

Keith: I was a visionary! I was ahead of it. Now I’ve just got to get caught up to Nehemia! But it is wonderful, because what we want to do is tell people, “Because of your support, you have access to everything that’s on both sites.” You have access to things when you’re a Premium Content Library Member, you have access…

Nehemia: If you support…

Keith: If you support, yes, absolutely.

Nehemia: Both situations.

Keith: Yeah, hopefully you all do that.

Nehemia: Alright! Can you pray?

Keith: Yes. Father, thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for this section of Hebrew Gospel Pearls that we have been in here for these last six episodes. We just ask that You’ll continue to inspire people, motivate people, and we’ll do everything that we can to help them have an encounter with the language, history, and context of the words of Yeshua.

Nehemia: Father, I ask You to put a blessing upon all those who’ve supported what I’m doing, what Keith is doing, that allows us to share this episode and this information with a much, much broader audience. We were able to do this, and prepare this information, and share it with the world because of those people who You’ve put it upon their hearts to support what we’re doing. We’re so grateful for that. Amen.

Keith: Amen.

You have been listening to Hebrew Gospel Pearls with Nehemia Gordon and Keith Johnson. Thank you for supporting Nehemia Gordon’s Makor Hebrew Foundation. Learn more at NehemiasWall.com.

We hope the above transcript has been a helpful resource in your study. While much effort has been taken to provide you with this transcript, it should be noted that the transcript has not been reviewed by the speakers and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. If this teaching has been a blessing to you, please consider supporting Nehemia's research and teachings, so he can continue to empower people around the world with the Hebrew sources of their faith!